A classification of the bird species of South America
South American Classification Committee
American Ornithologists' Union
The South American Classification Committee is an official
committee of the American Ornithologists' Union whose mission is to create a
standard classification, with English names, for the bird species of South
America. This classification is subject to constant revision by the proposal
system to allow incorporation of new data. The SACC hopes to have this
classification published as a printed document within a year or so.
The classification below is a preliminary and is likely to
see many changes through Committee action; therefore, be certain to cite it as
"Version [date]." Suggested citation:
Remsen,
J. V., Jr., C. D. Cadena, A. Jaramillo, M. Nores, J. F. Pacheco, M. B. Robbins,
T. S. Schulenberg, F. G. Stiles, D. F. Stotz, and K. J. Zimmer. Version [date]. A
classification of the bird species of South America. American Ornithologists' Union. http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html
This list is open to proposals for change from the
ornithological community as a whole. Proposals for changes must be based on previously
published data, information, or analyses. See Proposal Tracking page for examples of previous
proposals as well as commentary from SACC members and others on each proposal
submitted so far. Send proposals or comments on existing ones to Remsen.
Proposals may be in English or Spanish (we apologize that many of us are not
yet proficient in reading Portuguese or French). All aspects of the
classification are subject to modification through the proposal system (species
limits, boundaries of orders, families, and genera, linear sequences, English
names, etc.).
The footnotes are also obviously preliminary (some are no
more than reminders to ourselves), in "working draft" stage,
inconsistent in style, and will be modified extensively; many have yet to be
added. [Errors in numbering them are frequent as we continue to add new notes.]
The primary goal is to provide references for all changes from Meyer de
Schauensee's (1966, 1970) foundational classification, as well as the
"Peters Checklist" series and the "Cory-Hellmayr" series,
so that the user can determine how and why (if known) changes were made;
citations to alternative treatments are also provided. Also, the notes are
intended to signal phylogenetic relationships among taxa that might not be
evident from the linear sequence. The notes also indicate where SACC proposals
for change have been acted upon (in blue),
where SACC proposals are pending (in magenta),
and where proposals are needed (in red).
If you spot typographical errors, missing taxa, or mistakes
of any kind, please let Remsen know. If your research is not cited
herein, it is unlikely we are ignoring it -- we just have not yet had time to
incorporate it into the notes or proposals.
Taxonomy: The starting point for the classification was a
pre-publication draft of Dickinson (2003); the published version differed in a
few minor ways from the version used for the starting point (as noted in the
Notes sections below). The classification herein consists mainly of the ranks
Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Most traditional subfamilies are omitted
unless supported by multiple independent data sets that mark major, deep
branches within a family. Subspecies are omitted for now; a future edition will
also include the Subspecies rank as designating diagnosable populations
(equivalent to phylogenetic species sensu Cracraft) within taxa accorded
species rank, as well as synopses of distribution. We recognize the importance
of this level of classification for many kinds of analyses but are unable to
provide a comprehensive evaluation of which currently recognized subspecies
represent valid taxonomic units in terms of diagnosability. See Dickinson
(2003) for a preliminary assessment of valid subspecies of South American
birds, as well as various volumes of the Handbook of the Birds of World
(Lynx Edicions, Barcelona).
Geographical scope: The region covered by the list is: (1) continental
South America and all islands within 1200 km of its shores in the Atlantic and
Pacific oceans (including Malpelo, the Galapagos islands, San Felix and San Ambrosio, the Juan Fernandez islands, Fernando de Noronha,
Trindade, Martin Vaz, S√£o Pedro and S√£o Paulo
Archipelago, and the Falklands/Malvinas); (2) islands in the Caribbean Sea
close to South America and not covered by the AOU Checklist (including Netherlands Antilles, Trinidad and Tobago); and
(3) waters within 200 nautical miles of the coasts of these land areas,
including the islands.
For lists of species recorded from each
country and territory (using SACC classification and criteria) within the SACC
region, including downloadable EXCEL file, click SACC Country Lists
Criteria for inclusion: a species is included on the list
if the evidence for its occurrence in the area is supported by tangible
evidence that is available for verification, namely a museum specimen or an
archived or published photograph, videotape, or sound recording. The main list
currently includes 3,269 species (3043 native breeding species, 1 of which is
extinct; 147 nonbreeding residents; 65 vagrants; 14 established, introduced
species). Of these, 98 newly discovered species have been described since the
publication of Meyer de Schauensee's (1970) classic compilation of the species
of birds of South America (i.e., at a rate of 2.5 species per year). Species whose presence is supported only by sight records,
or by unpublished or non-archived tangible evidence, are placed on the Hypothetical List.
English names: The English names used by SACC follow those in Dickinson
(2003), which in turn generally followed those used by Meyer de Schauensee
(1970) and AOU (1998) for New World species. Several, however, have been
changed subsequently from Dickinson (2003) through the proposal mechanism.
Alternative English names are given if they have appeared in reference
literature since Meyer de Schauensee (1970). SACC follows the published
guidelines for English names and their orthography as noted in AOU (1983:
xxi-xxii) and references therein. For SACC policy on use diacritical marks
(accents, cedillas, tildes), click here.
The SACC is not involved in producing a list of standardized
Spanish names. Click here for rationale. However, the SACC hopes to produce
Spanish and Portuguese versions of the Notes once the English version reaches
the stage at which the classification is ready for publication as a printed
document.
Current SACC membership =
Carlos Daniel Cadena, Universidad de los Andes
Alvaro Jaramillo, San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory
Manuel Nores, Centro de Zoología Aplicada,
Córdoba
José
Fernando Pacheco,
Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos
J.
V. Remsen, Jr.
(Acting Chair), Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana
State University
Mark B. Robbins, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas
Thomas S. Schulenberg, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
F. Gary Stiles, Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Douglas F. Stotz, Field Museum of Natural History
Kevin J. Zimmer, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
Technical Advisor for Hybrids and
Dubious Taxa:
Gary
R. Graves,
National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
Technical Advisor for Vagrant and
Hypothetical Species:
Mark
Pearman, Birdquest & Aves Argentinas/Asociación
Ornitológica del Plata
Technical Advisors:
Steven
L. Hilty, Victor
Emanuel Nature Tours, Inc., & Museum of Natural History, University of
Kansas
Bret
M. Whitney,
Field Guides & Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University
Data-base Advisor:
Steve Olesen
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Abbreviations:
NB = nonbreeding resident; V
= vagrant; IN = introduced species*; EX = extinct
(within last 200 years)
* SACC proposal for adopting BOU-like guidelines on defining "introduced" species did not pass, but the committee is strongly in favor of developing formal guidelines.
[VERSION: 9 November 2008]
[Most recent changes to the classification, updated 29 September (click)]
Part 1. Struthioniformes to Cathartiformes (below)
Part 2. Falconiformes to Charadriiformes (click)
Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)
Part 4. Apodiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)
Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Eurylaimidae and
Furnariidae) (click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Thamnophilidae to
Rhinocryptidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae)
(click)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (click)
Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to
Emberizidae) (click)
Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (click)
Composite List created by Sjoerd Mayer (Scientific
and English names only) (click)
EXCEL file of SACC list (click)
Hypothetical List (click)
Hybrids and Dubious Taxa (click)
Literature Cited (click)
Proposal Tracking page (click)
STRUTHIONIFORMES 1
RHEIDAE (RHEAS)
Rhea americana Greater Rhea 2
Rhea pennata Lesser Rhea 2, 3, 4
1. The relationships among, and classification of, the five
families of living ratites are controversial and beyond the geographic scope of
this classification. The Rheidae are here treated as a family within the
broadly defined ratite order Struthioniformes, following the classification in
Folch (1992) and Dickinson (2003); other classifications retain only the
ostriches (Struthionidae) and the Rheidae in the Struthioniformes. See (REFS)
for evidence that supports a sister relationship between the Rheidae and
Struthionidae, but see also Cooper et al. (1992, 2001), Lee et al. (1997), van
Tuinen et al. (1998), and Haddrath and Baker (2001). Recent genetic data
(Hackett et al. 2008) suggest that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with
respect to the Tinamiformes. Proposal needed to
change SACC classification to reflect this.
2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Pterocnemia into
Rhea. SACC proposal passed to merge Pterocnemia
into Rhea.
3. The montane subspecies tarapacensis (with "garleppi")
may deserve recognition as a separate species from lowland nominate pennata
(Blake 1977, Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990, Folch 1992), and this
was followed by Jaramillo (2003).
4. Called "Darwin's Rhea" in Johnson (1965), Mazar
Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Gill & Wright (2006), but this is the
name associated with the nominate, Patagonian subspecies (e.g., Hellmayr &
Conover 1942) or when the Andean forms are considered a separate species, with
"Puna Rhea" reserved for the Andean species (e.g., Jaramillo 2003).
Virtually all other modern literature on South American birds uses "Lesser
Rhea" for P. pennata.
TINAMIFORMES 1
TINAMIDAE (TINAMOUS)
Nothocercus
julius Tawny-breasted Tinamou
Nothocercus bonapartei Highland
Tinamou 2a
Nothocercus nigrocapillus Hooded Tinamou
2a
Tinamus tao Gray Tinamou
Tinamus solitarius Solitary Tinamou 1a
Tinamus osgoodi Black Tinamou 3
Tinamus major Great Tinamou 2
Tinamus guttatus White-throated Tinamou
Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou
4
Crypturellus berlepschi Berlepsch's Tinamou
4
Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou
Crypturellus ptaritepui Tepui Tinamou
Crypturellus obsoletus Brown Tinamou
5
Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou
Crypturellus transfasciatus Pale-browed
Tinamou 6, 6a
Crypturellus strigulosus Brazilian Tinamou
Crypturellus duidae Gray-legged Tinamou
7
Crypturellus erythropus Red-legged Tinamou
7, 8
Crypturellus noctivagus Yellow-legged
Tinamou 7
Crypturellus atrocapillus Black-capped
Tinamou 7
Crypturellus kerriae Choco Tinamou 7
Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou
Crypturellus brevirostris Rusty Tinamou
9
Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou
9
Crypturellus parvirostris Small-billed
Tinamou 10
Crypturellus casiquiare Barred Tinamou
11
Crypturellus tataupa Tataupa Tinamou
10
Rhynchotus rufescens Red-winged Tinamou 12
Rhynchotus maculicollis Huayco
Tinamou 12
Nothoprocta taczanowskii Taczanowski's
Tinamou
Nothoprocta ornata Ornate Tinamou 13
Nothoprocta perdicaria Chilean Tinamou
14
Nothoprocta cinerascens Brushland Tinamou 14
Nothoprocta pentlandii Andean Tinamou
14
Nothoprocta curvirostris Curve-billed
Tinamou 14
Nothura boraquira White-bellied Nothura
15
Nothura minor Lesser Nothura 15
Nothura darwinii Darwin's Nothura 16
Nothura maculosa Spotted Nothura 16
Nothura chacoensis Chaco Nothura 16
Taoniscus nanus Dwarf Tinamou
Eudromia elegans Elegant Crested-Tinamou
17
Eudromia formosa Quebracho Crested-Tinamou
17, 18
Tinamotis pentlandii Puna Tinamou 19
Tinamotis ingoufi Patagonian Tinamou 19
1. The monophyly of the Tinamiformes
has never been seriously questioned. Likewise, multiple independent lines of
evidence (see summary in Cabot 1992, and more recently, García-Moreno and
Mindell 2000, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Paton et al. 2002, Cracraft et al. 2004,
Livezey and Zusi 2007) indicate that the Tinamiformes is the sister group to
the ratites (Struthioniformes), and that these two groups, the Paleognathae,
are the sister to all other living birds, the Neognathae (e.g., Cracraft 1988,
Cracraft & Mindell 1989, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Braun & Kimball 2002,
Mayr and Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007). However, recent genetic data
(Hackett et al. 2008) suggest that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with
respect to the Tinamiformes. Proposal needed to
change SACC classification to reflect this. The Tinamidae are often (e.g.,
Cabot 1992) divided into two subfamilies, the Tinaminae (Tinamus, Nothoprocta,
and Crypturellus) and the Rynchotinae (all other genera), based
primarily on location of nares; analyses of morphological data (Bertelli et al.
2002) support the monophyly of Rynchotinae, but the Tinaminae may be
paraphyletic; genetic data are not yet available. Morphological (Bertelli et
al. 2002) and molecular data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) generally
support the traditional among-genera and among-species relationships implied by
traditional linear sequences except that Crypturellus and Tinamus
are proposed as sister genera. SACC proposal passed to
change linear sequence of some genera.
1a. Pinto (1938) treated the
Amazonian subspecies serratus (with peruvianus, then known as ruficeps)
as a separate species from Tinamus major.
2. Hellmayr & Conover (1942)
suggested that Tinamus solitarius was probably better treated as a
subspecies of T. major.
2a. Nothocercus bonapartei
and N. nigrocapillus were considered to form a
probable superspecies by Parker et al. (1985); Bertelli et al. (2002)
and Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) also found them to be sisters. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
3. An analysis of phenotypic
characters suggested that T. osgoodi does not belong in that genus and
is embedded within Crypturellus (Bertelli et al. 2002); however, genetic
data (Bertelli & Porzecanski, in press) indicate that osgoodi does
belong in Tinamus.
4. Crypturellus cinereus and C.
berlepschi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific, but most recent
classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) follow Blake (1977), who noted
that "the longer toes of berlepschi in proportion to the tarsus,
the heavier and usually longer bill, and the conspicuous differences in
coloration strongly support the concept of mutually exclusive species." The
two species are sisters (Bertelli et al. 2002) that form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
5. Blake (1977), Sibley & Monroe
(1990), and Cabot (1992) noted that the subspecies traylori possibly
deserves recognition as separate species from Crypturellus obsoletus.
6. Analysis of phenotypic characters
indicates that C. transfasciatus and Middle American C. cinnamomeus
are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
6a. "Crypturellus
rubripes," described from northwestern Peru and treated as a species
by Peters (1931) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), is now known to be the male
plumage of C. transfasciatus (Koepcke 1962).
7. Species limits in this complex (Crypturellus
duidae through C. kerriae, also probably including Middle
American C. cinnamomeus and C. boucardi) are poorly understood
and weakly justified, and a thorough study, especially of voice, is badly
needed. Species-level taxonomy and allocation of subspecies to species has been
exceptionally labile, perhaps more so than any other species complex in the New
World. For example, within subspecies included here in C. erythropus,
Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that cursitans was actually a
subspecies of C. duidae. Blake (1977) suggested that columbianus
was possibly a distinct species (as treated by Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or
"perhaps a very distinct Colombian isolate of ... C. boucardi."
Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered saltuarius as a distinct species,
and Blake (1977) suggested that saltuarius might be a subspecies C.
kerriae (but that kerriae might also be a subspecies of Middle
American C. boucardi). The subspecies idoneus and spencei
were treated as subspecies of Middle American C. cinnamomeus in [early
Peters]. Thus, Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that the taxa columbianus,
idoneus, and saltuarius, treated here as subspecies of erythropus,
may deserve species rank or may belong in other species. Crypturellus
erythropus was formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. atrocapillus or of
C. noctivagus (Hellmayr & Conover 1942), but is here treated as a
species following Blake (1977, 1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Cabot (1992),
and Davies (2002). The taxon garleppi, here
treated as a subspecies of C. atrocapillus (following Blake 1977,
1979) was formerly considered a subspecies of C. noctivagus (e.g.,
Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Peters?) and perhaps merits species rank (Cabot
1992). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. kerriae and C.
erythropus, along with Middle American C. boucardi, to
form one superspecies, and C. duidae, C. noctivagus,
and C. atrocapillus to form a separate
superspecies. Bertelli et al.'s (2002) analysis of phenotypic characters indicated
that C. boucardi and C. kerriae are sister species, but
otherwise found little support for the monophyly of this complex. SACC proposals to rank columbianus, idoneus,
and saltuarius each as separate species did not pass because of
insufficient published data.
8. Called "Red-footed
Tinamou" by Davies (2002).
9. Hellmayr & Conover (1942)
treated C. bartletti as a subspecies of Crypturellus brevirostris,
and they are certainly sister taxa (Bertelli et al. 2002). Sibley & Monroe
(1990) considered C. bartletti and C. brevirostris
to form a superspecies, but they seem to overlap in
portions of western Amazonia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely &
Greenfield 2001). Fieldwork is needed to clarify the taxonomic status of C.
bartletti, which is so similar to C. brevirostris that true syntopy
seems unlikely. <or some similar statement>
10. Analysis of phenotypic
characters indicates that C. tataupa and C. parvirostris are
sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002).
11. Analysis of phenotypic
characters indicates that the traditional placement of C. casiquiare
near C. parvirostris and C. tataupa is not correct, and this it
is most closely related to C. brevirostris/C. bartletti (Bertelli
et al. 2002). Proposal needed.
12. Rhynchotus maculicollis
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Blake 1977, 1979, Cabot 1992, Monroe & Sibley 1993) considered a subspecies
of R. rufescens. Maijer (1996) provided evidence that maculicollis
differs substantially in vocalizations from R. rufescens. The two
species form a superspecies. SACC
proposal passed to recognize maculicollis as a separate species.
13. Blake (1977) suggested that Nothoprocta
kalinowskii might be better treated as a subspecies of N. ornata;
Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; analysis
of phenotypic characters supports their treatment as sister taxa (Bertelli et
al. 2002). Krabbe and Schulenberg (2005) have shown that N. kalinowskii
is a junior synonym of N. ornata branickii. SACC
proposal passed to remove kalinowskii from list.
14. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and
Cabot (1992) considered Nothoprocta perdicaria, N. pentlandii,
and N. cinerascens to form a superspecies.
Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), however, considered this group to include N.
curvirostris and not N. cinerascens. Analysis of phenotypic
characters indicates that N. perdicaria and N. curvirostris are
sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002). Proposal
needed to change linear sequence.
15. Analysis of phenotypic
characters indicates that N. boraquira and N. minor are sister
species (Bertelli et al. 2002).
16. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered Nothura darwinii, N. maculosa, and N.
chacoensis to form a superspecies; analysis of
phenotypic characters indicates that they do form a monophyletic group
(Bertelli et al. 2002). Nothura darwinii was formerly (e.g.,
Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa, but
they are locally sympatric and their voices differ (Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990,
Cabot 1992). Nothura chacoensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
& Conover 1942, Blake 1979) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa,
but they are sympatric in Paraguay and northern Argentina (Blake 1977, Cabot
1992).
17. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered
Eudromia elegans and E. formosa to form
a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
& Conover 1942) considered conspecific,
but see Conover (1950), Olrog (1959), Blake (1977), Navas & Bo (1981), and
Bertelli et al. (2002).
18. The Paraguayan subspecies mira
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover
1942) considered a separate species from Eudromia
elegans, but it either merely represents an extreme in clinal variation in
(Blake 1977), or a weakly diagnosable subspecies of (Blake 1979, Cabot 1992), E.
elegans.
19. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered Tinamotis pentlandii and T. ingoufi to form a superspecies.
ANSERIFORMES 1
ANHIMIDAE (SCREAMERS)
Anhima
cornuta Horned Screamer
Chauna
torquata Southern Screamer
Chauna
chavaria Northern Screamer
ANATIDAE (DUCKS) 1a
Dendrocygninae 2
Dendrocygna bicolor Fulvous
Whistling-Duck 3, 3a
Dendrocygna viduata White-faced
Whistling-Duck 3
Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied
Whistling-Duck 3
Anatinae
Anser anser Graylag Goose (IN) 3b
Cygnus melancoryphus Black-necked Swan
4
Coscoroba coscoroba Coscoroba Swan 4a
Chloephaga melanoptera Andean Goose
Chloephaga picta Upland Goose
4a
Chloephaga hybrida Kelp Goose
Chloephaga poliocephala Ashy-headed
Goose
Chloephaga rubidiceps Ruddy-headed
Goose
Neochen jubata Orinoco Goose 5
Cairina moschata Muscovy Duck
Sarkidiornis melanotos Comb Duck
6
Callonetta leucophrys Ringed Teal 7, 7a
Amazonetta brasiliensis Brazilian
Teal 7a, 8, 8a
Merganetta armata Torrent Duck
8b
Tachyeres patachonicus Flying Steamer-Duck
8
Tachyeres pteneres Flightless Steamer-Duck
9, 10
Tachyeres brachypterus Falkland
Steamer-Duck 9, 9a
Tachyeres leucocephalus White-headed
Steamer-Duck 9, 11
Lophonetta specularioides Crested Duck
8, 12
Speculanas specularis Spectacled Duck
8,13
Anas americana American Wigeon (NB) 14
Anas sibilatrix Chiloe Wigeon 14, 15
Anas crecca Green-winged Teal (V) 7a, 16, 17
Anas andium Andean Teal 7a, 16, 18
Anas flavirostris Yellow-billed Teal
7a, 16, 18
Anas acuta Northern Pintail (NB) 19, 19a, 20
Anas georgica Yellow-billed Pintail
19, 19a, 21, 21a
Anas bahamensis White-cheeked Pintail 19, 21b, 21c
Anas versicolor Silver Teal 22
Anas puna Puna Teal 22
Anas discors Blue-winged Teal (NB) 22a
Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal 22a
Anas platalea Red Shoveler 22b
Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler (NB) 22b
Netta erythrophthalma Southern Pochard
22c
Netta peposaca Rosy-billed Pochard
22d
Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck (V) 23
Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup (NB)
Mergus octosetaceus Brazilian Merganser
Heteronetta atricapilla Black-headed
Duck
Nomonyx dominicus Masked Duck
24
Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck 25
Oxyura vittata Lake Duck 26
1. Galliformes
+ Anseriformes, collectively called Galloanseres, are placed in the linear
sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of data that show
that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal within the
neognath birds. Click here for details, as well as
see Mayr & Clarke (2003), Fain & Houde (2004), Livezey and Zusi (2007), and Hackett
et al. (2008). See Zusi & Livezey (2000),
Sorenson et al. (2003), and Cracraft et al. (2004), for support for the
traditional monophyly of the Anseriformes.
1a. [within-family
relationships] <incorp Johnson-Sorensen REFs, Livezey REFs, Donne-Gousse et
al. 2002., Callaghan & Harshman 2005 etc.>
2. The Dendrocygna
whistling-ducks were considered a separate family from Anatidae by [REFS]; they
are the outgroup to all other Anatidae except Anseranas
[REFs, Fain & Houde (2004)].
3. Whistling-Ducks were
formerly called "Tree-Ducks" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt
& Mees 1994).
3a. Dendrocygna bicolor and
Australasian D. arcuata form a superspecies
(Mayr & Short 1970, Johnsgard 1979, Carboneras 1992f).
3b. Anser anser is introduced
and established on the Falklands Islands (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990). Small feral population in Bogotá, Colombia (Salaman et al. 2008).
SACC proposal passed to transfer from Hypothetical
List to Main List, based on the situation in the Falklands.
4. Correct
spelling for species name is melancoryphus (David & Gosselin 2002a),
not "melanocoryphus" or "melanocorypha."
4a. Woolfenden (1961)
proposed that Coscoroba is more closely related to other swans (Cygnus)
than to any other waterfowl despite some unusual behavioral and morphological
characters.
4b. Jaramillo (2003)
suggested that Chloephaga picta might consist of more than one species.
5. Neochen is feminine, so
the correct spelling of the species name is jubata (David & Gosselin
2002b).
6. New World sylvicola may be
a species distinct from Old World Sarkidiornis melanotos and is treated
as such by Pinto (1938), Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa), and Wetmore (1965). <cite
Livezey if evidence presented other than strict PSC reasoning>.
7. Callonetta leucophrys was
formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in genus Anas, but
see Johnsgard (1960) and Woolfenden (1961).
7a. Callonetta leucophrys,
Amazonetta brasiliensis, Anas crecca, and A. flavirostris/andium
were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948aa) placed in a separate genus, Nettion,
but see <REF>.
8. Amazonetta was placed in Anas
by (REFS), but see Woolfenden (1961) and Johnsgard (1965). Johnson &
Sorenson (1999) found that its sister species was likely Speculanas
specularis, and that these two plus Lophonetta and Tachyeres
formed a monophyletic group.
8a. Called "Brazilian
Duck" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
8b. Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa)
treated the subspecies colombiana and leucogenys as separate
species from Merganetta armata, but they were
considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Johnsgard (1978), and
most recent classification.
9. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and
Carboneras (1992f) considered Tachyeres pteneres, T. leucocephalus,
and T. brachypterus to form a superspecies.
<incorp. Livezey 1986>
9a. Called "Falkland Flightless
Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978).
10. Called "Magellanic
Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978), "Magellanic
Steamer-Duck" in Carboneras (1992f) and "Fuegian Steamer-Duck"
in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001). Proposal needed?
11. Recently described: Humphrey
& Thompson (1981). Called "Chubut Steamer-Duck" in Mazar Barnett
& Pearman (2001).
12. Lophonetta specularioides
is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Johnsgard
1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Johnson & Sorenson (1999) for
return to monotypic Lophonetta, as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and
Blake (1977).
13. Speculanas specularis is
often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Johnsgard 1978, 1979) placed in Anas,
but see Livezey (1991, 1997) and Johnson & Sorenson (1999).
14. Livezey (1991) advocated
resurrection of genus Mareca for the wigeon + Holarctic Anas strepera
and Palearctic A. falcata, representing a return to the
classification of Pinto (1938), Hellmayr &
Conover (1948a), and Phelps & Phelps (1958a). Mareca was merged
into Anas following Delacour & Mayr (1945) and Johnsgard (1965). Genetic data (Johnson& Sorenson 1999) confirm that Mareca
is monophyletic but also suggest that the resurrection of Mareca might
make Anas a paraphyletic genus. Peters et al. (2005) found that A.
sibilatrix, not Old World A. penelope as in
traditional and morphology-based (e.g., Livezey 1991) classifications, is the
sister to A. americana.
14a. Carboneras (1992f) considered Anas
americana and A. sibilatrix to form a
superspecies with Old World A. penelope.
15. Called "Southern
Wigeon" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere.
16. Johnson and Sorenson (1999)
found that North American carolinensis was more closely related to A.
flavirostris than either was to Old World A. crecca, but NACC
delayed treating the two as separate species pending analysis of contact zone
in Bering Sea and additional (nuclear) DNA data. <incorp
Delacour & Mayr 1945, Johnsgard 1965>
17. Recorded from n.
Colombia (Meyer
de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>).
At least three sight records, one actually a non-archived video record, for
Trinidad (ffrench 1973, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench
& Kenefick 2003). One sight record for Aruba (Mlodinow
2004).
18. Hellmayr
& Conover (1948a) and many earlier classifications treated andium as
a separate species from A. flavirostris. Following <find first
author to lump>, many authors, from Meyer de Schauensee (1970) to Dickinson
(2003), have treated andium as a subspecies of A. flavirostris. Anas andium was considered a separate species from Anas
flavirostris by Ridgely et al. (2001), and this was followed by
Hilty (2003). SACC proposal passed to recognize andium
as separate species. Jaramillo (2003) further suggested that the
subspecies oxyptera may also deserve
recognition as a separate species from A. flavirostris.
19. Anas acuta, A. georgica,
and A. bahamensis were formerly (e.g.,
Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) treated in a separate genus, Dafila, but
see <REF>; genetic data (Johnson& Sorenson 1999) suggest that they
form a monophyletic group. Anas bahamensis and A. georgica
spinicauda were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in a separate genus, Paecilonitta,
but see <REF>.
19a. Johnsgard (1979) and Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered Anas acuta and A. georgica
to form a superspecies.
20. Called "Common
Pintail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and "Pintail" in
Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
21. As noted by Ridgely et al. (2001), no rationale
has ever been published for the merger (by Meyer de Schauensee 1966) of
mainland Anas spinicauda with A. georgica from South Georgia
Island, which was treated as separate species by Hellmayr & Conover
(1948a); see also Jaramillo (2003). Proposal needed.
21a. The Colombian subspecies nicefori
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a)
considered a separate species from Anas georgica, but REFs, Meyer
de Schauensee (1966), Blake (1977), and Johnsgard (1979) treated them as
conspecific.
21b. Delacour and Mayr (1945)
considered Anas bahamensis to form a superspecies
with African A. erythrorhyncha.
21c. Formerly
known as "Bahama Pintail" (e.g., REFS) or "Bahama Duck"
(AOU 1957).
22. Anas puna and A. versicolor
are sometimes (e.g., <?> Peters 1931, Johnsgard
1979, Carboneras 1992f, Dickinson 2003) considered conspecific, but most
classifications (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) consider them to be
separate species. They form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and
genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm
that they are sister species. SACC proposal to
treat puna as conspecific with versicolor did not pass.
Johnsgard (1965) proposed that these two species were most closely related to
African A. hottentota; genetic data (Johnson
& Sorenson 1999) suggest that this is correct.
22a. Anas puna and A. versicolor
were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a)
placed in a separate genus, Punanetta, but see <REF>.
22a. Anas discors and A.
cyanoptera were formerly (e.g., Pinto
1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a
separate genus, Querquedula, but see Delacour & Mayr (1945) and
McKinney (1970). Genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that they
are sister species.
22b. Anas platalea and A.
clypeata were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr &
Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Spatula, but see <REF>.
22c. Netta erythrophthalma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed the genus Aythya,
but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
22d. Netta peposaca was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr
& Conover 1948a) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Metopiana,
but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
22e. Called
"Rosybill" in Johnsgard (1978), Madge & Burn (1988), Dickinson
(2003). and elsewhere.
23. Recorded from northern Venezuela
(Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>). Several sight
records for Trinidad & Tobago accepted by
Trinidad & Tobago Rare Birds Committee (ffrench & White 1999,
White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick 2004).
24. Nomonyx dominicus was
formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, 1983, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee
1966, 1970) placed in the genus Oxyura. See Livezey (1995) and
[McCracken REFS] for resurrection of Nomonyx as genus separate from Oxyura,
a return to the classification of Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr
& Conover (1948a).
25. Andean populations have often
(e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Siegfried
1976, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, AOU 1998, Ridgely et al. 2001, Jaramillo
2003) been treated as a separate species, O. ferruginea ("Andean
Duck" or "Andean Ruddy-Duck"). However, see Adams and Slavid
(1984), Fjeldså (1986), and McCracken & Sorenson (2005) for rationale for
treating them as conspecific, as done previously (e.g., Blake 1977, Johnsgard
1979), and then followed by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Carboneras (1992f).
Siegfried (1976) and Livezey (1995) considered ferruginea to be more
closely related to O. vittata than to O. jamaicensis,
but McCracken & Sorenson (2005) showed that this is incorrect.
26. Called "Argentine
Blue-billed Duck" in Johnsgard (1978) and Carboneras (1992f).
GALLIFORMES 1
CRACIDAE (GUANS) 1a
Chamaepetes goudotii Sickle-winged Guan 21
Penelope
argyrotis Band-tailed Guan 8
Penelope
barbata Bearded Guan 8
Penelope
ortoni Baudo Guan 9
Penelope
montagnii Andean Guan 9
Penelope marail Marail Guan 10
Penelope superciliaris Rusty-margined
Guan 10, 15
Penelope dabbenei Red-faced Guan
10a, 10b
Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan 11, 12, 12a
Penelope purpurascens Crested Guan 11
Penelope perspicax Cauca Guan 11, 13
Penelope albipennis White-winged Guan 11, 14
Penelope obscura Dusky-legged Guan 11
Penelope pileata White-crested Guan 15
Penelope ochrogaster Chestnut-bellied
Guan 15
Penelope jacucaca White-browed Guan 15
Pipile pipile Trinidad Piping-Guan
8, 16, 17
Pipile cumanensis Blue-throated Piping-Guan
17, 18
Pipile cujubi Red-throated Piping-Guan 17,
19
Pipile jacutinga Black-fronted Piping-Guan 17
Aburria aburri Wattled Guan 8, 16
Ortalis cinereiceps Gray-headed Chachalaca 2
Ortalis garrula Chestnut-winged
Chachalaca 2
Ortalis ruficauda Rufous-vented
Chachalaca 3
Ortalis erythroptera Rufous-headed
Chachalaca
Ortalis canicollis Chaco Chachalaca
Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca
4, 5
Ortalis motmot Variable Chachalaca 4, 6, 7
Ortalis superciliaris Buff-browed
Chachalaca 4, 4a
Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow 22
Crax rubra Great Curassow 30, 30a
Crax alberti Blue-billed Curassow 30, 30aa
Crax daubentoni Yellow-knobbed
Curassow 30, 31
Crax alector Black Curassow 30, 30b, 30c
Crax globulosa Wattled Curassow 30
Crax fasciolata Bare-faced Curassow 30, 30c, 32
Crax blumenbachii Red-billed Curassow
Mitu tomentosum Crestless Curassow
23, 24, 25, 26, 28
Mitu salvini Salvin's Curassow 23, 24
Mitu tuberosum Razor-billed Curassow
23, 24, 27
Mitu mitu Alagoas Curassow 23, 24, 27
Pauxi pauxi Helmeted Curassow 28, 29
Pauxi unicornis Horned Curassow 28, 29
1. Galliformes + Anseriformes are
placed in linear sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of
data that show that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal
within the neognath birds. Click here for details. The
monophyly of the Galliformes has never been seriously questioned. [relationships among families]
1a. Vaurie (1968) recognized three major
divisions within the family based on morphological criteria: the guans and
chachalacas (tribe Penelopini), the curassows (Cracini), and the (extralimital)
Horned Guan (Oreophasini). Delacour & Amadon (1973) considered the latter
to be part of the chachalaca-guan group and recognized only two major
divisions, (a) the curassows and (b) everything else. Del Hoyo (1994)
recognized two subfamilies, Cracinae for the four genera of curassows and
Penelopinae for everything else. Genetic data (Pereira
et al. 2002) identify two main groups, one consisting of del Hoyo's Cracinae as
well as Ortalis and Oreophasis, and the other consisting of the
guan genera Aburria, Pipile, Penelope, Penelopina
(extralimital), and Chamaepetes; however, support was weak for the nodes
that include Ortalis and Oreophasis with the curassows. A more
comprehensive analysis (Crowe et al. 2006) also supports treating these two
groups as subfamilies. SACC proposal passed to
change linear sequence of genera. SACC proposal to add subfamilies did not pass. <incorp. Amadon
1970>.
2. Ortalis cinereiceps was formerly (e.g., Ridgway & Friedmann 1946,
Vaurie 1965b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered conspecific with
O. garrula, but see Delacour & Amadon
(1973); Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered them
to form a superspecies.
3. The subspecies ruficrissa
was considered a separate species from Ortalis
ruficauda by Peters (1934) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), but it intergrades with ruficauda
in northern Colombia and Venezuela (Phelps 1943, Phelps and Phelps 1958, Vaurie
1965b, del Hoyo 1994).
4. Ortalis guttata and O.
superciliaris have been treated as conspecific with O. motmot (see
Delacour & Amadon [1973] for rationale); they are considered to form a monophyletic
group (Vaurie 1965) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo
1994).
4a. Ortalis superciliaris was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934,
Pinto 1938) known as O. spixi, but see
Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
5. The geographically isolated races columbianus,
araucuan, and squamata have sometimes (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Sick
1993, 1997, Ridgely et al. 2001) been treated as separate species from Ortalis
guttata; they have generally been treated as subspecies of O. guttata
following Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Vaurie (1965). Proposal needed.
6. Sick (1993, 1997) treated ruficeps of
eastern Brazil as a separate species from Ortalis motmot. Proposal needed.
7. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley &
Monroe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) called "Little
Chachalaca."
8. Vuilleumier (1965) merged Pipile and Aburria
into Penelope, but this has not been followed by
subsequent authors. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002) do not provide
support for their merger.
8a. Penelope barbata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr &
Conover 1942, Vaurie REF, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered a
subspecies of P. argyrotis, but see Delacour
& Amadon (1973); they are evidently sister species (Delacour & Amadon 1973) that form a superspecies
(Sibley & Monroe 1990); Parker et al. (1985) proposed that they might form
a superspecies with P. montagnii.
9. Vuilleumier (1965) treated Penelope ortoni as a
subspecies of P. montagnii, but its mostly lowland distribution
and local sympatry would argue against such a treatment. <incorp.
Vaurie 1966> Eley (1982) presented evidence that its closest relative was P.
marail.
10. Penelope marail and P. superciliaris form
a superspecies (Haffer 1987, del Hoyo 1994).
10a. Penelope dabbenei was formerly (e.g., Peters
1934) known as P. nigrifrons, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
10b. Olrog (1960) suggested that Penelope dabbenei
might best be treated as a subspecies of P.
montagnii.
11. Haffer (1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and del Hoyo
(1994) considered Penelope purpurascens, P. perspicax, P. albipennis,
P. jacquacu, and P. obscura to form a superspecies;
they were considered conspecific by Vuilleumier (1965), but see Delacour & Amadon (1973). [
incorp. Eley 1982.]
12. Penelope jacquacu has been considered conspecific
with P. obscura (Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens (REF), but see
Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Delacour & Amadon
(1973).
12a. The granti subspecies
group was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps
1958a) considered a separate species from Penelope jacquacu, but
see <REF>. The Bolivian subspecies speciosa was
treated as a subspecies of P. obscura by Peters (1934).
13. Penelope perspicax was considered a subspecies of
P. jacquacu by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Blake (1977), or of P.
purpurascens by Peters (1934), Hellmayr & Conover (1942), and Meyer de
Schauensee (1970); for treatment as separate species, see Delacour & Amadon (1973).
14. Penelope albipennis has been considered an
aberrant or albinistic form or morph of P. ortoni (Peters 1934) or P.
purpurascens (Vuilleumier REFs), but Eley (1982) provided evidence that it
is a valid species-level taxon, as treated by Hellmayr & Conover (1942),
Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Delacour & Amadon
(1973).
15. Delacour & Amadon (1973)
and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Penelope pileata, P.
ochrogaster, and P. jacucaca to form a
superspecies; they were formerly considered conspecific (e.g.,
Vuilleumier REFS). Pinto (1938) considered P. jacucaca to be a
subspecies of P. superciliaris.
16. The genus Pipile is merged by
some (Delacour & Amadon 1973, Haverschmidt
& Mees 1994) into Aburria. Pipile is currently treated
as a separate genus in most classifications. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002,
Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that Aburria and Pipile are
sister taxa, and this is supported by morphological data (Grau et al. 2005).
New genetic data (Grau et al. 2005) indicate that Aburria aburri is
embedded within Pipile, thus forcing the merger of Pipile into Aburria.
SACC proposal to merge Pipile into Aburria
did not pass. Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented morphological and
genetic data to support the merger of Pipile into Aburria. Proposal badly needed. <Remsen will draft one>
17. As noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), evidence
for species rank for the four species of Pipile is weak, and various
authors have used just about every possible permutation of species limits. Many
authors (e.g., Hilty & Brown 1986, Hilty 2003) continue to treat them as a
single species, Pipile pipile ("Common Piping-Guan"),
whereas others (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1966,
Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994) consider all four major groups as
separate species, the treatment followed here. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and
del Hoyo (1994) considered P. pipile, P. cumanensis,
and P. cujubi to form a superspecies,
but excluded P. jacutinga. Although the latter has been
considered sympatric with P. p. grayi in eastern Paraguay (Blake 1977),
del Hoyo & Motis (2004 REF) noted that the evidence for sympatry is weak.
Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977) considered cumanensis to be
conspecific with P. pipile, but considered cujubi and jacutinga
to be separate species. Peters (1934) considered the genus to contain three
species: P. pipile, P. cumanensis, and P. jacutinga. Pinto
(1938) treated cujubi as a subspecies of P. pipile (and cumanensis,
grayi, and jacutinga as species), but later (Pinto 1964) treated cujubi
as a subspecies of P. jacutinga. Where P. cujubi nattereri and P.
cumanensis grayi meet in eastern Bolivia, they interbreed freely, forming a
hybrid swarm (del Hoyo and Motis 2004), and so this suggests that species
limits should be re-evaluated and returned to those of Delacour
& Amadon (1973), who considered the genus to contain two species: P.
pipile (including cumanensis, cujubi, etc.) and P.
jacutinga. Proposal needed. [incorp. Vaurie (1967a)]
18. The subspecies grayi
was considered a separate species from Pipile cumanensis by Pinto (1938), but they intergrade in
southeastern Peru (REF). <inc. Gyldenstolpe
1945>
19. The subspecies nattereri is usually
considered a subspecies of Pipile cumanensis (e.g., Pinto 1938, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970); however, it is perhaps sympatric with P. cumanensis
grayi on the lower Rio Madeira (Vaurie 1967), and if this is verified, the
two deserve treatment as separate species (Blake 1977).
20.
21. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del
Hoyo (1994) considered Chamaepetes goudotii
to form a superspecies with Middle American C.
unicolor.
22. Nothocrax was
merged into a broadly defined Crax by Delacour & Amadon (1973), but this merger
has seldom been followed; see also Pereira & Baker (2004).
23. Haffer (1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Del Hoyo (1994) considered all species of Mitu
to form a superspecies. <check
overlap salvini-tuberosa>
24. Some authors (e.g., Delacour
& Amadon 1973, REFS) merge Mitu into Crax. Most
authors, however, continue to maintain them as separate genera, and genetic
data (Pereira & Baker 2004) are consistent with
this treatment.
24a. The four species of Mitu were
considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990); genetic data
support the genus as a monophyletic group if the genetic similarity between M.
tuberosum and Pauxi unicornis is due to hybridization (Pereira &
Baker 2004).
25. Mitu is neuter, so the correct spellings of the
species names are tuberosum and tomentosum (David & Gosselin
2002b).
26. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called
"Lesser Razor-billed Curassow."
27. Mitu tuberosum was formerly (e.g., Meyer
de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with M. mitu, but most
recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) have followed (REF);
the rediscovery of M. mitu has allowed documentation of its unique
characters that provide rationale for considering it and tuberosum as
separate species (REFS). Furthermore, genetic data (Pereira
& Baker 2004) indicate that M. tuberosum and M. mitu are not
sister taxa and are not particularly closely related.
28. Some authors (Delacour &
Amadon 1973, REFS) merge Pauxi into Crax; this merger has
seldom been followed, but see Note 29. Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented
morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Mitu into Pauxi. Proposal badly needed.
29. Pauxi pauxi and P. unicornis form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994); they were considered
conspecific by (REF). Recent genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) indicated
that P. unicornis was more similar in its mtDNA sequence to Crax
tuberosum than to P. pauxi or other curassows, but the authors
suspected that this was a consequence of past hybridization between P. unicornis
and C. tuberosum.
30. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994)
considered the seven species of Crax to form a
superspecies. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) support the genus
as a monophyletic group
30a. <Crax globicera (e.g. Chapman 1926) syn, of C.
rubra>
30aa. "Crax annulata," described from
northern Colombia and treated as a species by Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and
Meyer de Schauensee (1966), is now considered to be female plumage of barred
morph of C. alberti (REF, del Hoyo 1994). "Crax viridirostris,"
known from the type specimen, an aviary bird of unknown origin, is now
considered to be aberrant C. alberti or a hybrid (C. alberti X Crax
sp.) (Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Teixeira REF, del Hoyo
1994). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
30b. Crax alector was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934,
Pinto 1938) known as C. nigra, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
30c. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that Crax
alector and C. fasciolata are sister species. Proposal needed to change linear sequence.
30d. "Crax estudilloi,"
known from a single aviary specimen from Bolivia, was considered a probable
hybrid (C. fasciolata and Crax sp.) by Vuilleumier &
Mayr
(1987). <inc. L. Joseph REF>
31. Peters (1934) considered Crax daubentoni as a
subspecies C. alberti. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) are
consistent with their treatment as sister taxa.
32. The northeastern subspecies pinima was formerly
(e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) treated as a separate species from Crax
fasciolata; they have generally been treated as conspecific following
<check Pinto & Camargo 1948, Pap. Avulsos 8, p.
249> and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
ODONTOPHORIDAE (NEW WORLD QUAILS) 1
Callipepla
californica California Quail (IN)
Colinus cristatus Crested Bobwhite 2
Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled
Wood-Quail
Odontophorus capueira Spot-winged
Wood-Quail
Odontophorus atrifrons Black-fronted
Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus erythrops Rufous-fronted
Wood-Quail 4
Odontophorus hyperythrus Chestnut
Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus melanonotus Dark-backed
Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus speciosus Rufous-breasted
Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus dialeucos Tacarcuna
Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus strophium Gorgeted
Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus columbianus Venezuelan
Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus balliviani Stripe-faced
Wood-Quail
Odontophorus stellatus Starred
Wood-Quail
Rhynchortyx cinctus Tawny-faced Quail
6
1. The New World Quails were treated
as a separate family from Old World quails, partridges, and pheasants
(Phasianidae) by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Whether these families are
sister taxa within the Galliformes was formerly regarded as uncertain
(Armstrong et al. 2001, Dimcheff et al. 2001), but recent genetic analyses (Cox
et al. 2007) confirm that the New World quail are likely the sister taxon to a
group that includes turkeys, pheasants, partridges and Old world quail
(Phasianidae), but not the guineafowl (Numididae). Recognition of
Odontophoridae as a separate family from the Phasianidae is thus largely
arbitrary, but has also been adopted by Carroll (1994), AOU (1998), and
Dickinson (2003). <Incorp Crowe et al. 2006>
2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Colinus
cristatus to form a superspecies with North and
Middle American C. virginianus and Middle American C.
nigrogularis. Some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Sibley &
Monroe 1990) have considered Central American C. leucopogon to be
conspecific with C. cristatus; they form a
superspecies (Stiles & Skutch 1989).
3. Species limits and relationships within montane Odontophorus
are complex and are currently maintained largely by historical momentum rather
than analysis or data. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus
dialeucos and O. strophium to form a superspecies.
Carroll (1994) suggested that these two and also O. columbianus, O.
atrifrons, and Central American O. leucolaemus could be considered
conspecific. However, the traditional placement of O. atrifrons in
linear sequences is next to members of other groups, e.g., O. erythrops
or O. hyperythrus. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) maintained columbianus
as a separate species but stated that it was almost certainly conspecific
with O. strophium.
4. Odontophorus erythrops forms a
superspecies with Middle American melanotis (Sibley & Monroe
1990); some authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Ridgway
& Friedmann 1946, Blake 1977, AOU 1983) have considered them conspecific.
5. Blake (1977) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus
hyperythrus, O. melanonotus, and O. speciosus to form
a superspecies; Carroll (1994) suggested that they all could be treated as
conspecific, as they were formerly by (REF).
6. Called "Banded Wood
Quail" in Wetmore (1965) and "Long-legged Colin" in Ridgway
& Friedmann (1946).
PODICIPEDIFORMES 1
PODICIPEDIDAE (GREBES)
Rollandia rolland White-tufted
Grebe 2, 3
Rollandia microptera Titicaca Grebe
4, 4a
Tachybaptus dominicus Least Grebe 5
Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe
Podiceps major Great Grebe 6
Podiceps andinus Colombian Grebe (EX) 7
Podiceps occipitalis Silvery Grebe 8, 9
Podiceps taczanowskii Junin Grebe
10
Podiceps gallardoi Hooded Grebe 11
1. The grebes constitute a
distinctive lineage with no close relatives, and the monophyly of the order has
never been questioned. Morphological similarities to the loons (Gaviiformes)
have been interpreted as reflecting relatedness (e.g., Cracraft 1982, Mayr
& Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007) and has led to their traditional
placement next to each other in most linear classifications (e.g., AOU 1983),
but genetic data strongly suggest that these morphological similarities are
purely due to convergence (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006). A
recent genetic data set (van Tuinen et al. 2001) suggested that the closest
living relatives of the grebes are the flamingos (Phoenicopteriformes), a
hypothesis that also has recent morphological support (Mayr & Clarke 2003,
Mayr 2004; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007) and additional genetic support (Chubb
2004a, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008),
including a sister relationship between their ischnoceran lice (Johnson et al.
2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
Fain & Houde's (2004) genetic data also suggests
that both orders are part of an early radiation that does not include their
traditional close relatives such as Ciconiiformes or Gaviiformes. All of
the New World grebes were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
& Conover 1948a) placed in one genus, Colymbus, but see
<REF>. The sequence of genera and species in this classification follows
Storer (1979). [incorporate Simmons 1962, Storer 1963,
Bochenski 1994]
2. Rollandia rolland
was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in genus Podiceps,
but recent classifications usually follow Storer's (1963) analysis of
morphology and display behavior in use of Rollandia for this species and
microptera.
3. The subspecies of continental
South America, Rollandia r. chilensis, was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931,
Pinto 1938; see also Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a separate species
from nominate rolland of the Falkland Islands.
4. Rollandia microptera was
formerly (e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Centropelma; Simmons
(1962) provided rationale for its merger into Podiceps. Recent
classifications usually follow Storer (1963, 1967) in placing this species in Rollandia
(see Note 2).
4a. Called "Titicaca Flightless
Grebe" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Llimona & del Hoyo (1992),
and "Short-winged Grebe" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake
(1977). SACC proposal passed to change from
"Short-winged Grebe" (as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970) to
"Titicaca Grebe." The latter was adopted by
Schulenberg et al. (2007).
5. Tachybaptus dominicus was formerly
(e.g., AOU 1957, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee
1970) placed in the genus Podiceps, but recent classifications usually
follow Storer (1976) in the use of Tachybaptus for this species and its
Old World relatives; Pinto (1938) placed it in the genus Poliocephalus.
6. Podiceps major was
formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed
in the genus Aechmophorus, but see Wetmore & Parkes (1954).
Bochenski (1994) proposed that this species be placed in a monotypic genus (Podicephorus
Bochenski, 1994) based on morphological differences; see also Storer (1963,
1996), who noted that it has a behavioral display unlike that of any other
grebe. Proposal needed.
7. Podiceps andinus was formerly
(e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Storer 1979) considered a
subspecies of mostly N. Hemisphere P. nigricollis, but see Fjeldså
(1982a, 1985), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Hilty & Brown (1986); they
form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
8. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and
Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the northern Andean subspecies, juninensis,
might merit recognition as a separate species from Podiceps occipitalis.
9. Storer (1979) and Sibley &
Monroe (1990) included Podiceps occipitalis in a superspecies with P.
andinus and P. nigricollis; Llimona & del Hoyo (1992) also
included P. taczanowskii in that superspecies, but the latter is
syntopic with P. occipitalis.
10. Called "Puna Grebe" in
Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere;
called "Junin Flightless Grebe" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and
elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change to
"Junin Grebe." The latter was adopted by
Schulenberg et al. (2007).
11. Recently described: Rumboll
(1974).
PHOENICOPTERIFORMES 1
PHOENICOPTERIDAE (FLAMINGOS)
Phoenicopterus
ruber American Flamingo 2, 3
Phoenicopterus chilensis Chilean Flamingo 3
Phoenicoparrus andinus Andean
Flamingo 4
Phoenicoparrus jamesi James's
Flamingo 4, 5
1. Various evidence has been interpreted to support
treatment of the flamingos within or closest to the Ciconiiformes (Sibley &
Ahlquist 1990, Livezey & Zusi 2007), Anseriformes (Hagey et al. 1990), and
Charadriiformes (Olson & Feduccia 1980). Given this uncertainty, and recent
genetic (Van Tuinen et al. 2001, Chubb 2004a, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et
al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008; see also Fain &
Houde 2004) and morphological (Mayr & Clarke 2003, Mayr 2004,
Manegold 2006) evidence that their closest relatives are the Podicipediformes,
we follow <REFS> and del Hoyo (1992) in treating them in their own order,
the monophyly of which has never been questioned. See additional comments under
Podicipediformes. SACC proposal passed to change
linear sequence to move next to Podicipediformes.
2. The Old World subspecies roseus is recognized as a
separate species by some authors (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Blake 1977), with the English name "Greater Flamingo" applied to the
Old World species, and either "Caribbean Flamingo" or "American
Flamingo" (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty 2003) used for
the New World species. Sangster (1997) reviewed the evidence for species rank
of roseus and recommended it be returned to species rank. This was
followed by NACC (Banks et al. 2008). <incorp. Knox
et al. 2002> SACC proposal passed to return roseus
to species rank.
3. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phoenicopterus
ruber and P. chilensis to form a superspecies;
they were treated as conspecific by Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover
(1948a).
4. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Phoenicoparrus
into Phoenicopterus based on small genetic distances among all
flamingoes as measured by DNA-DNA hybridization (Sibley & Ahlquist 1989);
further, the distinctions between the genera are based on bill morphology. Kahl
(1979b), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and del Hoyo (1992) maintained Phoenicoparrus
as a separate genus. Proposal needed.
5. Called "Puna Flamingo" in Meyer de Schauensee
(1970), Blake (1977), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley and Monroe (1990),
and del Hoyo (1992). Proposal needed.
SPHENISCIFORMES 1
SPHENISCIDAE (PENGUINS)
Aptenodytes patagonicus King
Penguin
Aptenodytes forsteri Emperor Penguin
(V) 2
Pygoscelis papua Gentoo Penguin 3
Pygoscelis antarcticus Chinstrap
Penguin (NB) 3
Eudyptula minor Little Penguin (V) 11
Spheniscus humboldti Humboldt Penguin 12
Spheniscus mendiculus Galapagos
Penguin
Spheniscus magellanicus Magellanic
Penguin 12
Eudyptes sclateri Big-crested Penguin
(V) 6, 7
Eudyptes chrysolophus Macaroni Penguin 10, 10a
Eudyptes chrysocome Rockhopper
Penguin 8, 9
Eudyptes robustus Snares Penguin
(V) 5
1. Several studies [REFs, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Gibb et
al. 2007, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008] suggest that the
Sphenisciformes and Procellariiformes are sister taxa. Mayr and Clarke's (2003)
analysis of morphological characters suggested that the Sphenisciformes were
the sister to Gaviidae + Podicipedidae, but Mayr (2005) proposed that the
penguins were closer to some Pelecaniformes. The most recent analyses of DNA
sequence data (Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain and Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006)
are generally ambiguous with respect to relationships of the Sphenisciformes.
<incorp. Paterson et al. 1993>
The monophyly of the family has never been questioned (and see Schreiweis 1982,
O'Hara 1989, McKitrick 1991, and Giannini & Bertelli 2004 for recent
support). Analyses of morphological and behavioral characters
(Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989, McKitrick 1991, Giannini & Bertelli 2004)
suggest that traditional genera are monophyletic, recently confirmed by genetic
data (Baker et al. 2005); however, these analyses each produce different linear
sequences, none of which is consistent with the molecular data of Sibley &
Ahlquist (1990) or Baker et al. (2006). The classification and sequence here
follows Falla & Mougin (1979), but recent genetic data (Baker et al. 2006)
indicate that this requires revision to reflect their phylogenetic data. Also,
an analysis that combined genetic and phenotypic data (Bertelli & Giannini
2005) produced a phylogenetic hypothesis very similar to that of Baker et al.
(2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
2. Unpublished photographic records from the Falklands in
1936 and 1954 (Hamilton 1954) and sight records in 1987 (Wolsey 1987, Curtis
1988), 1996 (Brown 1996), and 1999 (Gates 2001), although evidence for the 1936
record is archived with a photograph at the Scott Polar Research Institute,
Cambridge, U.K. A specimen collected at the first
narrows of the Magellan Straits near Punta Delgada, Chile, is housed at the
Univ. of Magallanes, Punta Arenas (Venegas 1978, 1982) and was possibly
collected in 1978 (Marín 2004). From Argentina, one of two specimens mentioned
by Venegas (1982) is still housed at the Museo Mayorino Borgatello, Punta
Arenas, collected from the Mitre Peninsula, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. There
are also vague sight records from elsewhere in Tierra del Fuego (Chebez &
Bertonatti 1994) and at-sea off Buenos Aires (Jehl & Rumboll 1977).
3. Pygoscelis is masculine, so the correct spelling
of the species name is antarcticus; papua, however, is invariable
(David & Gosselin 2002b).
4.
5. Confirmed by a single record with photograph published
from New Island, Falklands, in Dec. 1988 (Lamey 1990).
6. Five Falklands records include one from 1961 to 1966
(Napier 1968), one in the 1980-1981 austral summer (Strange 1992), one during
each austral summer from 1997 to at least 2006 (Morrison et al. 2006), another
in spring 2003 (Black et al. 2005), and another in 2005 (Morrison et al. 2006).
Photographic documentation appears in Birding World (11: 158,
1998) and White & Henry (2001).
7. Called "Erect-crested Penguin" in Martínez
(1992), Williams (1995), etc. Proposal needed.
8. Eudyptes chrysocome may consist of more than one
species (see Jaramillo 2003).
9. [Note needed on old name E.
crestatus, as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977].
10. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Martínez (1992)
considered Eudyptes chrysolophus to form a
superspecies with E. schlegeli of Macquarie Island; the latter
was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a subspecies of E. chrysolophus.
<incorp. Warham (1980)?>
10a. Vagrants to Argentina supported by specimens in MACN, BM(NH), and FML.
11. Wilson et al. (2000) reported a specimen from Chile. Three previous records from Chile, one backed by unpublished photo
(Valverde & Oyarzo 1996). Proposal passed
to add to main list. Proposal passed to change name from "Little Blue
Penguin" to "Little Penguin."
12. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Spheniscus
humboldti and S. magellanicus to form a
superspecies with African S. demersus; genetic differences among
them are low (REF), and some authors consider them conspecific (REF).
PROCELLARIIFORMES 1
DIOMEDEIDAE (ALBATROSSES) 1a
Phoebastria
irrorata Waved Albatross 2, 3
Diomedea epomophora Royal Albatross
(NB) 4
Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross
(NB) 4a
Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross (V) 5
Phoebetria palpebrata Light-mantled
Albatross (NB) 6
Thalassarche chlororhynchos Yellow-nosed
Albatross (NB) 2, 2a
Thalassarche melanophrys Black-browed
Albatross 7, 7a
Thalassarche chrysostoma Gray-headed
Albatross
Thalassarche bulleri Buller's
Albatross (NB) 7b
Thalassarche cauta White-capped
Albatross (NB) 8, 9
Thalassarche salvini Salvin's Albatross
(NB) 8
Thalassarche eremita Chatham Albatross
(NB) 8
1. The monophyly of the Procellariiformes has never been
seriously questioned, and modern analyses (e.g., Ericson et al. 2006, Livezey
and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) support the traditional view. The
Procellariiformes are likely sister to the Sphenisciformes (see Note 1 under
that order; c.f. Ericson et al. 2006). [note on
relationships among families] <incorp Penhallurick & Wink (2004); cf
Rheindt & Austin (2005).
1a. The monophyly of the
Diomedeidae has never been questioned seriously. The linear sequence of genera
used here was modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes
received high bootstrap support.
2. Phoebastria and Thalassarche were formerly
(e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992a) placed in the
genus Diomedea, but see Nunn et al. (1996) and Penhallurick & Wink
(2004).
2a. Thalassarche chlororhynchos has been considered
to consist of three separate species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), and this treatment has been followed by <REF>. Lima &
Grantsau (REF) have found four specimens from Brazil of the form carteri,
treated as a species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), Onley & Scofield
(2007), and others.
3. Formerly known as "Galapagos Albatross" (e.g.,
Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970).
4. Treated as consisting of two species by Onley &
Scofield (2007). [species limits: Robertson & Nunn
(1998), Tickell etc., ] proposal needed.
4a. Treated as consisting of four species by Onley &
Scofield (2007). [species limits: Robertson & Nunn
(1998), Burg & Croxall 2004, Penhallurick & Wink (2004)] proposal needed.
5. See Willis & Oniki (1985, 1993) for Brazil record
(cf. Teixeira et al. 1988); also see Lima et al. (1997) for a second record
from Brazil. <Blake (1977) reported specimen off Cape Horn>
6. Formerly (e.g., REF) known as "Light-mantled Sooty
Albatross."
7. The species name is also frequently given as melanophris.
Carlos and Voisin (2008) have published a proposal to conserve the original
spelling in the type description, melanophris.
7a. [species limits: Robertson
& Nunn 1998, Burg & Croxall 2001] proposal
needed.
7b. [species limits: Robertson
& Nunn (1998)] proposal needed.
8. Thalassarche cauta has been considered to consist
of four separate species by Robertson & Nunn (1998). See, however,
Penhallurick & Wink (2004) for continued treatment of all as conspecific.
<incorp. Abbott & Double 2003a, b, Double et
al. 2003, Rheindt & Austin 2005> SACC proposal
passed to split into two or three species. SACC proposal to reverse this decision did not pass.
Brooke (2004) treated eremita and salvini as separate species
from T. cauta. Subsequent SACC proposal passed
to split into 3 species.
9. Called "Shy Albatross"
in Onley & Scofield (2007).
PROCELLARIIDAE (SHEARWATERS) 1
Macronectes
giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel 2, 3
Macronectes halli Northern Giant-Petrel
(NB) 2
Fulmarus glacialoides Southern Fulmar
(NB) 2a
Thalassoica antarctica Antarctic Petrel (NB)
Daption capense Cape Petrel (NB) 4
Pagodroma nivea Snow Petrel (V) 4a
Aphrodroma brevirostris Kerguelen Petrel
(NB) 5
Pterodroma mollis Soft-plumaged Petrel
(NB)
Pterodroma hasitata Black-capped Petrel
(NB)
Pterodroma incerta Atlantic Petrel (NB) 6
Pterodroma lessonii White-headed Petrel
(NB)
Pterodroma cookii Cook's Petrel (NB) 7, 10
Pterodroma defilippiana Masatierra Petrel
8, 9, 10
Pterodroma longirostris Stejneger's Petrel
10
Pterodroma neglecta Kermadec Petrel
10a, 10b
Pterodroma arminjoniana Herald Petrel
10a, 12
Pterodroma inexpectata Mottled Petrel
(V) 11
Pterodroma phaeopygia Galapagos Petrel
13
Pterodroma externa Juan Fernandez Petrel 14
Halobaena caerulea Blue Petrel
14a
Pachyptila turtur Fairy Prion
Pachyptila vittata Broad-billed Prion
(V) 15, 15a
Pachyptila desolata Dove Prion (NB) 15, 16
Pachyptila belcheri Slender-billed Prion
17
Bulweria bulwerii Bulwer's Petrel (V) 18, 18a
Procellaria cinerea Gray Petrel (NB) 18a, 19
Procellaria aequinoctialis White-chinned
Petrel 20, 21
Procellaria conspicillata Spectacled Petrel
(NB) 20, 21, 21a
Procellaria parkinsoni Parkinson's Petrel
(NB) 21, 22
Procellaria westlandica Westland Petrel
(NB) 21
Calonectris diomedea Cory's Shearwater
(NB) 23, 24, 24a
Puffinus pacificus Wedge-tailed Shearwater
(NB) 23a
Puffinus bulleri Buller's Shearwater
(NB) 25
Puffinus griseus Sooty Shearwater 25a
Puffinus gravis Greater Shearwater 26
Puffinus creatopus Pink-footed Shearwater 27
Puffinus carneipes Flesh-footed
Shearwater (NB) 27, 27a
Puffinus puffinus Manx Shearwater (NB) 28, 28a
Puffinus assimilis Little Shearwater
(NB) 29, 28a
Puffinus lherminieri Audubon's Shearwater
28a, 29, 30, 31
Puffinus subalaris Galapagos
Shearwater 31
1. The monophyly of the family has never been questioned
seriously, with the recent exception of possible inclusion of Pelecanoides
within the Procellariidae (Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004,
Ericson 2006). Linear sequence of genera modified from Kennedy & Page
(2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support. Recent genetic
data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support the treatment of Macronectes,
Fulmarus, Thalassoica, Daption, and Pagodroma as a
monophyletic group; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated tribe rank
(Fulmarini) for this group.
2. Macronectes giganteus and M. halli
were formerly considered conspecific, and often (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1970, Blake 1977) called "Giant Fulmar." See Bourne & Warham
(1966), Hunter (1987), and references therein for treatment of the two as
separate species. However, lack of interbreeding where sympatric is achieved
primarily through temporal segregation rather than any other barriers to gene
flow; see summary of evidence for treating them as conspecific in Penhallurick
& Wink (2004), but see also Rheindt & Austin (2005) for support of the
two species treatment. Proposal needed?.
2a. Fulmarus glacialoides was considered a subspecies
of boreal F. glacialis by (REF), although it was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in
a separate monotypic genus, Priocella; the two species constitute
a superspecies (AOU 1998).
3. Called "Antarctic Giant-Petrel"
in Sibley & Monroe (1990).
4. Formerly called "Pintado Petrel" (e.g. REF) or
"Cape Pigeon" (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover
1948a).
4a. At least five birds have been found dead and one alive on
the Falkland Islands (Salvin 1896, R. Woods, pers. comm.). However, only three
of the specimens, including one of the two from 1979 mentioned by Peatfield
(1981), can now be located; they are in the British Museum (R. Woods, pers.
comm.).
4b. Treated as consisting of two separate species by Onley
& Scofield (2007).
5. Aphrodroma brevirostris was formerly placed in the
genus Pterodroma (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992b). Placed in monotypic
genus Lugensa by Imber (1985), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Kennedy &
Page (2002), and others, because inclusion in that genus would make Pterodroma
paraphyletic. Olson (2000) proposed a new genus Aphrodroma for this
species, because Lugensa cannot be applied to brevirostris.
Bourne (2001) provided rationale for why Lugensa should apply to brevirostris,
and this was accepted by Penhallurick & Wink
(2004). However, Olson showed that there is no confirmable evidence linking the
type species of Lugensa to the Kerguelen Petrel, in the absence of which
Aphrodroma must stand (R. Schodde, in litt.). Recent genetic data
(Penhallurick & Wink 2004) not only support treatment of brevirostris
in a separate genus, but also indicate that it is more closely related to the Puffinus
group of shearwaters than to Pterodroma; however, see Rheindt &
Austin (2005) for a reinterpretation of those data. Proposal
needed to change linear sequence?
6. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support Pterodroma
as a monophyletic group (once brevirostris is removed; see Note 5).
Penhallurick & Wink (2004) used genetic distance data to propose that Pterodroma
was best subdivided into four monophyletic groups, ranked at the subgenus
level: (1) subgenus Pterodroma, which of the species recorded from South
America includes P. hasitata, P. incerta, P. lessonii, and
P. mollis as well as several extralimital species; (2) subgenus Hallstroma,
which includes P. neglecta (and thus presumably P. arminjoniana),
P. externa, P. phaeopygia (and extralimital P. sandwichensis),
and P. inexpectata; (3) subgenus Cookilaria, which includes P.
longirostris, P. cookii (and thus presumably P. defilippiana),
and extralimital P. hypoleuca; and (4) subgenus "?Proaestrelata"
for some extralimital species including P. axillaris and P.
nigripennis.
6a. Formerly known as
"Hooded Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) or
"Schlegel's Petrel" (REF).
7. Formerly known as
"Blue-footed Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977).
8. Pterodroma defilippiana was formerly (e.g.,
Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Blake 1977)
considered a subspecies of P. cookii.
9. Called "Mas a Tierra Petrel" in Murphy (1936)
and Carboneras (1992b). Called "Defilippe's Petrel" in Sibley &
Monroe (1990), "Defilippi's Petrel" in Stattersfield (REF), and
"De Filippi's" Petrel in Onley & Scofield (2007). Also, Howell et
al. (1996) noted that the species is named for F. de Filippi, so the name
should be "de Filippi's Petrel". The latter, however, is difficult to
spell correctly, and certainly confuses Chileans who know the Philippi's as the
ornithologists that had a large influence in Chile. SACC
proposal to change English name to "De Filippi's Petrel" did not
pass.
10. Pterodroma defilippiana, and P. longirostris
are members of the "Cookilaria" species group, also including
extralimital P. cookii, P. hypoleuca, P. nigripennis, P.
axillaris, and P. leucoptera; they are considered to be each others'
closest relatives (Jouanin and Mougin 1979). Penhallurick & Wink (2004)
restricted this group; see Note 6 above.
10a. Pterodroma neglecta and P. arminjoniana
were considered to form a superspecies with P. alba
by Jouanin and Mougin (1979); P. arminjoniana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a
subspecies of P. neglecta.
10b. Pterodroma neglecta was recently discovered to
breed on Ilha da Trindade (Imber 2004).
11. [Reference needed for records]
<Meltofte & Horneman 1995>.
12. Some authors (REFS) consider the subspecies heraldica
to deserve recognition as a separate species from Pterodroma arminjoniana.
Also, dark birds have been recognized as a separate species, P. atrata (Brooke
& Rowe 1996, Dickinson 2003). proposal needed?
13. Pterodroma phaeopygia was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979)
considered to consist of two subspecies, nominate phaeopygia, which
breeds in the Galapagos Islands, and sandwichensis, which breeds in
Hawaii. Although Jouanin & Mougin (1979) and Carboneras (1992b) questioned
the validity of sandwichensis as a recognizable taxon, Tomkins &
Milne (1991) and Browne et al. (1997) provided rationale for considering Pterodroma
sandwichensis a separate species from P. phaeopygia based on
vocal and genetic differences between them comparable to those between other
species-level pairs in Pterodroma; the AOU (Banks et al.
2002) recognized them both as species: P. phaeopygia (Galapagos
Petrel) and P. sandwichensis (Hawaiian Petrel); SACC proposal passed to recognize P. sandwichensis as
a species.
14. Some treatments (e.g., Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979)
have considered Pterodroma cervicalis to be a subspecies of P. externa,
with the composite name "White-necked Petrel," but they are evidently
not sister taxa (Imber 1985). proposal needed?
14a. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate
that Halobaena is more closely related to Pachyptila, as proposed
by Imber1985), than to any other genus; Marchant & Higgins (1990) had
proposed that Halobaena and Pterodroma were sister genera.
15. Recorded in southwestern Peru (Hughes 1982).
15a. Species limits in the genus Pachyptila
are controversial, with most recent classifications recognizing six species in
the genus (e.g., Marchant & Higgins 1990, Carboneras 1992b) <incorp. Bretagnolle et al. 1990>; see summary in Penhallurick
& Wink (2004). Pachyptila
desolata was considered a subspecies of P. vittata by Cox (1980),
and Penhallurick & Wink (2004) considered it
and P. belcheri conspecific with P. vittata;
see, however, Rheindt & Austin (2005) and references therein. Proposal needed?.
15b. [note on use of forsteri
as species name, as in Pinto (1938), Blake (1977)]
16. Called "Antarctic
Prion" in Harrison (1983) and Sibley & Monroe (1990).
17. Called "Thin-billed Prion" in Harrison (1983),
Sibley & Monroe (1990), and elsewhere.
18. Recorded once near Trinidad (ffrench & ffrench
1966). <check documentation> Sight record off
Curaçao (Voous 1983). <check Bourne 1995>
18a. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate
that Bulweria and Procellaria are sister genera, contrary to
previous assessments of morphology that suggested that Bulweria was
closest to or embedded within Pterodroma (Olson 1975, Marchant &
Higgins 1990). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed recognizing Bulweria
+ Procellaria at the tribe level (Procellariini).
19. Procellaria cinerea was formerly (e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) placed in genus Adamastor, but most recent
classifications have followed (REF), Jouanin and Mougin (1979) in merging this
into Procellaria.
20. Procellaria conspicillata was formerly (e.g.,
Peters 1931, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Sibley & Monroe 1990,
Carboneras (1992b), Dickinson 2003) treated as a subspecies of P.
aequinoctialis. Ryan (1998) proposed that the conspicillata should
be treated as a separate species from Procellaria aequinoctialis based
mainly on vocal differences. SACC proposal passed to
treat P. conspicillata as a separate species.
21. Procellaria parkinsoni and P. westlandica
have been considered conspecific with P. aequinoctialis (e.g., REFS);
they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990),
which would also include P. conspicillata. Procellaria
westlandica is considered of regular off Chile and Argentina following
Brinkley et al. (2000).
21a. See Olmos (2001) for a summary of records and status
off Brazil, and Savigny (2002) for a sight record off Argentina.
22. Called "Black Petrel" in (REFS), Carboneras
(1992b). See Stiles & Skutch (1989) for rationale against use of
"Black Petrel."
23. Calonectris was formerly included in genus Puffinus
(e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), but most
recent classifications have followed (REF), and Jouanin and Mougin (1979).
Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) also support treatment of Calonectris
as a separate, monophyletic genus, sister genus to Puffinus.
23a. Based on genetic data, Penhallurick & Wink (2004)
proposed that Puffinus be subdivided into two genera: (1) Ardenna
for creatopus/carneipes, gravis, griseus, tenuirostris,
pacifica, and bulleri; and (2) Puffinus
for all other taxa. SACC proposal to split Ardenna
from Puffinus did not pass.
24. Some authors (Bannerman and Bannerman 1968, Patteson and
Armistead 2004, Onley & Scofield 2007) have recognized the subspecies edwardsii
and borealis as separate species from Calonectris diomedea, but
see Penhallurick & Wink (2004). Banks et al. (2006) formally recognized edwardsii
as a separate species. Proposal badly needed. At
least two specimens of edwardsii have been collected in Brazil (Lima et
al. 2002), and borealis is known from Trinidad (Collins 1969), but
majority of records are not assigned to subspecies; evidently, no certain
record of nominate diomedea exists for South America <?>.
24a. Calonectris diomedea was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) known as
Puffinus kuhli, but see REFS, Jouanin and Mougin (1979).
25. Formerly called "Gray-backed Shearwater"
(e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) or "New Zealand
Shearwater" (e.g., AOU 1957).
25a. <incorp. Austin (1996)?>
26. Called "Great Shearwater" in Carboneras
(1992b) and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
27. Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Penhallurick &
Wink 2004) support the traditional treatment of Puffinus creatopus and P.
carneipes as sister taxa. Some authors (e.g., REFS, Penhallurick & Wink
2004) consider them to be conspecific.
27a. The status of Puffinus
carneipes in South American waters is under review and may be downgraded to
"V".
28. Called "Common Shearwater" in Meyer de
Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
28a. Jouanin and Mougin (1979) considered Puffinus
puffinus (broadly defined), P. assimilis, and P. lherminieri,
along with extralimital P. gavia and P. huttoni, to be members of
the subgenus Puffinus and thus are considered each others'
closest relatives. Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are consistent with
treatment of the subgenus as monophyletic (if the Galapagos taxon subalaris
is removed; see Note 31). Species limits in this complex are controversial,
including within the taxa currently or previously treated as subspecies of P.
puffinus. As far as can be determined <check>, South American records
all pertain to nominate P. puffinus. <incorp.
Wink et al. 1993, Heidrich et al. 1998>
29. Puffinus assimilis and P. lherminieri were
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered
conspecific; they form a superspecies (Sibley &
Monroe 1990). However, genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are not consistent
with their treatment as sister taxa, but other genetic data (Penhallurick &
Wink 2004) support this treatment.
30. Called "Dusky-backed Shearwater" in Meyer de
Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
31. The subspecies subalaris of the Galapagos Islands
is traditionally treated as a subspecies of P. lherminieri . However, genetic data (Austin et
al. 2004) strongly indicate that subalaris is a species-level taxon that
is closely related to P. nativitatis and is only distantly related to P.
lherminieri. Murphy (1927) long ago noted the morphological distinctiveness
of this taxon. SACC proposal passed to recognize subalaris
as a species.
HYDROBATIDAE
(STORM-PETRELS) 1, 1a
Oceanitinae
Fregetta
grallaria White-bellied Storm-Petrel 2
Fregetta
tropica Black-bellied Storm-Petrel (NB) 2
Oceanites oceanicus Wilson's Storm-Petrel
2a
Oceanites gracilis Elliot's Storm-Petrel
3
Garrodia nereis Gray-backed Storm-Petrel
Pelagodroma marina White-faced
Storm-Petrel (NB)
Hydrobatinae
Oceanodroma
microsoma Least Storm-Petrel (NB) 4
Oceanodroma tethys Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel
4, 5
Oceanodroma castro Band-rumped Storm-Petrel
5a, 5b
Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leach's Storm-Petrel
(NB) 6, 6a
Oceanodroma markhami Markham's Storm-Petrel
6a, 7, 7a, 8, 9
Oceanodroma hornbyi Ringed Storm-Petrel
10
Oceanodroma melania Black Storm-Petrel
(NB) 4, 11
1. The monophyly of the family has never been questioned
seriously. Linear sequence of genera is modified from Kennedy & Page (2002)
wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support. Many classifications
(e.g., Carboneras 1992c) divide the family into two subfamilies. Recent genetic
data supports recognition of these two subfamilies (Penhallurick & Wink
2004). SACC proposal passed to recognize two
subfamilies. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004)
indicates a major overhaul of generic limits is needed in the Hydrobatinae,
e.g., Oceanodroma is paraphyletic and the genera Cymochorea, Halocyptena,
and Thalobata should be resurrected. SACC
proposal to recognize these genera did not pass.
SACC proposal to merge Oceanodroma into Hydrobates
did not pass. However, see Rheindt &
Austin (2005) for a critique of those data and their taxonomic interpretation.
Most species were formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) called simply "Petrel"
rather than "Storm-Petrel."
1a. SACC proposal to change to
lower case the "p" in "Storm-Petrel" did not pass.
2. Fregetta grallaria and F. tropica were
considered conspecific by (REFS).
2a. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the subspecies exasperatus
might be a separate species from nominate Oceanites oceanicus.
3. Called "White-vented Storm-Petrel" in Meyer de
Schauensee (1970), Hilty and Brown (1986), Sibley and Monroe (1990),
Schulenberg et al. (2007), and elsewhere; proposal
needed.
4. Oceanodroma microsoma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Jouanin and Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992c) placed
in the monotypic genus Halocyptena, evidently based mostly on tail shape
and body size, but most recent classifications have followed (REF, AOU 1983) in
merging this into Oceanodroma. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick &
Wink 2004) indicate that this species is more closely related to Oceanodroma
tethys, O. melania, and O. matsudairae that any of these are
to other Oceanodroma; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) thus advocate
resurrection of Halocyptena for these four species. SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena did not pass.
5. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965)
known as "Galapagos Storm-Petrel."
5a. Formerly (e.g., REFS) known as "Harcourt's
Storm-Petrel."
5b. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated resurrection of
the monotypic genus Thalobata for O. castro.
SACC proposal to recognize Thalobata did not
pass.
5c. Recent genetic data (Smith et
al. 2007) suggest that Oceanodroma castro consists of two or more
species. Proposal needed.
6. Oceanodroma leucorhoa may actually consist of two
or more species (Ainley 1980, 1983; cf. Bourne & Jehl 1982). The form that
occurs off the Galapagos Islands, here treated as the subspecies socorroensis,
was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966) treated as a separate species
("Dusky-rumped Storm-Petrel") or (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a)
as a subspecies of O. monorhis of the eastern Pacific Ocean.
6a. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated resurrection of
the genus Cymochorea for O. leucorhoa and O. markhami,
along with extralimital O. monorhis and O. tristrami. SACC proposal to recognize Cymochorea did not pass.
7. Supposed specimens of Oceanodroma markhami from
the Atlantic side of South America are misidentified O. leucorhoa
(Teixeira et al. 1986).
7a . Called "Madeiran
Storm-petrel" in Carboneras (1992c).
8. Oceanodroma markhami was considered conspecific
with O. tristrami of the eastern Pacific Ocean by <?>
Austin (REF).
9. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as
"Sooty Storm-Petrel."
10. Called "Hornby's Storm-Petrel" in Carboneras
(1992a), Ridgely et al. (2001), and Onley & Scofield (2007). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
11. Oceanodroma melania was formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) placed, with O. matsudairae of
the eastern Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, in a separate genus, Loomelania,
but see Austin (1952) and Palmer (1962). The two species might be better
treated as conspecific (Carboneras 1992c). Recent genetic data (Penhallurick
& Wink 2004) indicate that O. melania forms a group with O.
microsoma and O. tethys; Penhallurick &
Wink (2004) advocate recognizing this relationship (including O. matsudairae)
by placing them in the genus Halocyptena. SACC
proposal to recognize Halocyptena did not pass.
PELECANOIDIDAE (DIVING-PETRELS) 1
Pelecanoides
garnotii Peruvian Diving-Petrel 2
Pelecanoides
urinatrix Common Diving-Petrel 3, 4, 5
Pelecanoides georgicus South Georgia
Diving-Petrel (V) 2, 6
Pelecanoides magellani Magellanic
Diving-Petrel 2
1. The monophyly of the family,
consisting of a single genus, has never been questioned. However, genetic data
(Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson 2006) indicate that
they may be embedded within the Procellariidae. Proposal
needed, minimally to move in linear sequence of
families. Linear sequence of genera used here is modified from Kennedy
& Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support.
2. Carboneras (1992b) considered Pelecanoides
garnotii, P. georgicus, and P. magellani to form a superspecies [but not reflected in his linear sequence or
Kennedy-Page -- check latter].
3. Correct
spelling for species name is urinatrix, not "urinator"
(David & Gosselin 2002a).
4. Called
"Subantarctic Diving-Petrel" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
5. (REFS) recognized the subspecies berard
of the Falkland Islands as a separate species from Pelecanoides urinatrix.
6. Gregory (1994)
reported that a specimen was salvaged on the Falkland Islands on 31 March 1990
(and specimen "sent to BAS" - track down to verify).
PELECANIFORMES 1
PHAETHONTIDAE (TROPICBIRDS) 1a, 1b
Phaethon aethereus Red-billed Tropicbird
Phaethon rubricauda Red-tailed
Tropicbird (V) 1c
Phaethon lepturus White-tailed Tropicbird
PELECANIDAE (PELICANS) 2
Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican
3
Pelecanus thagus Peruvian Pelican 3
SULIDAE (BOOBIES) 3a
Morus capensis Cape Gannet (V) 4, 5
Morus serrator Australasian Gannet (V) 4, 6
Sula nebouxii Blue-footed Booby
Sula variegata Peruvian Booby
Sula dactylatra Masked Booby
7, 7a
Sula granti Nazca Booby 7
Sula sula Red-footed Booby
Sula leucogaster Brown Booby
PHALACROCORACIDAE (CORMORANTS) 8
Phalacrocorax harrisi Flightless Cormorant
8a
Phalacrocorax brasilianus Neotropic Cormorant
9, 10, 10a
Phalacrocorax gaimardi Red-legged Cormorant
Phalacrocorax magellanicus Magellan
Cormorant 11
Phalacrocorax bougainvillii Guanay Cormorant 12
Phalacrocorax atriceps Imperial
Cormorant 13, 13a, 14
ANHINGIDAE (ANHINGAS)
Anhinga
anhinga Anhinga 15
FREGATIDAE (FRIGATEBIRDS) 16
Fregata magnificens Magnificent Frigatebird
Fregata minor Great Frigatebird
Fregata ariel Lesser
Frigatebird
1. The order Pelecaniformes as traditionally constituted is polyphyletic (Sibley
& Ahlquist 1990, Hedges & Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen
et al. 2001, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006,
Gibb et al. 2007, Mayr 2007, Hackett et al. 2008;
cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007); incorp Kennedey
et al. 1996?] but is maintained here pending further
data. [family sequence (REF)]. Genetic data (Fain
& Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008) are consistent in showing that the Phaethontidae are not
at all closely related to other families in this order, but see Livezey
& Zusi (2007) for recent support from morphological data. Proposal badly needed to
remove Phaethontidae from Pelecaniformes.
Support is strong for the monophyly of a group that includes Sulidae,
Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, and probably Fregatidae (Sibley & Ahlquist
1990, Harshman 1994, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Kennedy &
Spencer 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008), but not the Pelecanidae. Proposal
badly needed to remove all other families from Pelecaniformes. The monophyly of each family has never been seriously
questioned and has been supported by or corroborated with genetic data for the
Sulidae (Friesen & Anderson 1997), the Phalacrocoracidae (Kennedy et al.
2000), the Phaethontidae (Kennedy & Spencer 2004), and the Fregatidae
(Kennedy & Spencer 2004); they are often treated as containing a single
genus each. The sequence of genera and species within each family follows Dorst
and Mougin (1979).
1a. <Phaethontidae
vs. Phaethonidae>
1b. Genetic data
(Kennedy and Spencer 2004) indicate that Phaethon aethereus is basal to
the other two species, and this supports the linear sequence used here.
1c. Specimens recorded from
"off" Chile (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Blake 1977). <possibly unpublished specimens -- no real citation provided,
nor how close to mainland - trace >. Published photographs
from Brazil (off Bahia; Couto et al. 2001). Sight
record from Peru (Hogsås 1999).
2. The Pelecanidae are almost
certainly not closely related to the other families included in the "Pelecaniformes";
see Note 1 The most likely sister taxon is the Afrotropical Balaeniciptidae
(Hedges & Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Fain and
Houde 2004, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006; cf. Mayr 2003, Mayr and
Clarke 2003) and Scopidae (Hackett et al. 2008).
3. Some authors (e.g.,
Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001)
recognized South American thagus as a separate species from Pelecanus
occidentalis. SACC proposal passed
to treat thagus as separate species. This
treatment was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007) and Banks et al.
(2008). <incorp. Wetmore 1945>
3a. <sequence
within Sulidae; incorp. Friesen & Anderson (1997)>
4. Carboneras (1992e) and other
references followed the merger (e.g., Dorst and Mougin 1979) of Morus into Sula;
proposal needed? See Olson & Warheit (1988)
and Van Tets et al. (1988) for reasons for maintaining Morus as a
separate genus.
5. SACC
proposal passed to add to main list; based upon photograph taken at
Macabí Island, n. Peru, on 22 July 1999, published in García-Godos (2002). In
Argentina, an earlier photograph was published from the Beagle Channel taken on
21 Jan. 1995 (Ramírez Llorens 1996); there are three additional sight records
from Río Negro province Nov. 1992, Nov. 1995, and Oct. 1996 (Bergkamp 1995,
Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001). The species was also recorded off Rio Grande
do Sul, se. Brazil, from Jul. to Aug 1992 (unpublished
photographs) and in Apr. 1983 (Vooren 2004; published photograph).
6. Specimen from Santa Catarina,
Brazil (Bege & Pauli 1986).
7. Sula granti was formerly
(e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979) considered
a subspecies of S. dactylatra, but Pitman and Jehl (1998)
presented evidence that it should be treated as a separate species; genetic
data are also consistent with this treatment (Friesen et al. 2002). SACC proposal to change the English name to "Grant's
Booby" did not pass.
7a. Formerly
(e.g., REFS) known as "Blue-faced Booby."
8. <sequence
within family; incorp. Kennedy et al. 2001, Siegel-Causey refs>
8a. Phalacrocorax harrisi was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a)
placed in the monotypic genus Nannopterum, but recent authors (e.g.,
Sibley & Monroe 1990, Orta 1992a) have usually followed <?> Dorst and Mougin (1979) in merging this into Phalacrocorax.
[note needed on the lump, Causey REFS?]
9. [note
needed on Siegel-Causey treatment of genera, Hypoleucus, Stictocarbo,
Leucocarbo, Notocarbo]
10. See Browning (1989) for use of brasilianus,
as in Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), instead
of olivaceus, as in Pinto (1938), AOU (1957), Meyer de Schauensee
(1970), Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), etc.
10a. Formerly
(e.g., AOU 1983) known as "Olivaceous Cormorant." SACC proposal did not pass to change spelling of English
name to "Neotropical."
11. Called "Rock Shag" in
Orta (1992a), and "Rock Cormorant" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and
Blake (1977). Proposal needed.
12. Called "Guanay Shag"
in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Proposal needed.
13. Phalacrocorax atriceps here
includes P. albiventer, formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
& Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and
Mougin 1979) treated as a distinct species ("King Cormorant").
Devillers & Terschuren (1978) considered albiventer to be a
subspecies of P. atriceps, and Siegel-Causey (1986) considered it
to be a color morph of atriceps. [incorp.
Rasmussen 1991] .
13a. Called "Imperial
Shag" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).
14. Some recent authors (e.g.,
Siegel-Causey 1988, Siegel-Causey & Lefrevre 1989, Sibley & Monroe
1990, Orta 1992a, Jaramillo 2003) have considered the subspecies bransfieldensis
of Antarctica and South Shetland Island to deserve recognition as a separate
species from Phalacrocorax atriceps. At least one
record of bransfieldensis for South America (Brazil; Lima et al. 2002).
Proposal needed.
15. Anhinga anhinga was
considered to form a superspecies with Old World A.
rufa, A. melanogaster, and A. novaehollandiae by Mayr &
Short (1970); the Old World taxa are treated as conspecific by Orta (1992b) and
Dickinson (2003).
16. Genetic data (Kennedy &
Spencer 2004) indicate that Fregata ariel is
basal to all other species in the genus. Proposal
needed to change linear sequence.
CICONIIFORMES 1
ARDEIDAE (HERONS) 2
Tigrisoma
lineatum Rufescent Tiger-Heron 2a
Tigrisoma fasciatum Fasciated Tiger-Heron
2a
Tigrisoma mexicanum Bare-throated
Tiger-Heron 2b
Agamia agami Agami Heron 3
Cochlearius cochlearius Boat-billed Heron
4, 4a
Zebrilus undulatus Zigzag Heron 7
Botaurus pinnatus Pinnated Bittern 8
Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern 9
Ixobrychus involucris Stripe-backed
Bittern
Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned
Night-Heron 5
Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned
Night-Heron 6
Butorides virescens Green Heron 10,
11
Butorides striata Striated Heron 10,
12, 13
Ardeola ralloides Squacco Heron (V) 13a
Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret 14
Ardea cinerea Gray Heron (V) 15, 16
Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron 16
Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron 16, 17
Ardea purpurea Purple Heron (V) 17a
Ardea alba Great Egret 18, 18a
Syrigma sibilatrix Whistling Heron 19
Pilherodius pileatus Capped Heron 20
Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron
21, 21a
Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret 21,
22
Egretta gularis Western Reef-Heron (V) 23, 25
Egretta garzetta Little Egret (V) 24, 25
Egretta thula Snowy Egret 25, 25a
Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron
21, 26
1. The monophyly of the
Ciconiiformes is controversial. Even with the Cathartidae excluded (see below),
recent morphological (Mayr & Clarke 2003) and genetic (e.g., Cracraft et
al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004,
Ericson et al.
2006, Hackett et al. 2008) are unable to confirm the monophyly of a group that
consists of Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae, and Ciconiidae.
2. The monophyly of the family
Ardeidae has never been seriously questioned other than the treatment of Cochlearius
in a separate, monotypic family. Sequence of genera
(and some species within genera) derives from the phylogeny of Sheldon (1987),
Sheldon et al. (1995), McCracken & Sheldon (1998), Sheldon et al. (2000),
and some unpublished data from Fred Sheldon. The family is often (e.g.,
Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) subdivided into four subfamilies, but these do
not correspond precisely to the branching pattern of the molecular phylogeny of
Sheldon et al. (2000), in which there is also some conflict depending on which
molecular data-set is used (e.g., whether tiger-herons and Cochlearius
are sister groups); thus, no subfamilial divisions are used here.
2a. Tigrisoma
fasciatum was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a
subspecies of T. lineatum, and the subspecies salmoni was
considered a separate species (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore
1965); REFS, and <?> Eisenmann (1965) provided
rationale for why T. fasciatum should be considered a separate species
and why salmoni should be considered a subspecies of T. fasciatum.
2b. Tigrisoma
mexicanum was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1965) placed in a
monotypic genus, Heterocnus.
2c. The
species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) used for mexicanum was
cabanisi, but see Blake (1977)
3. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) known as "Chestnut-bellied
Heron."
4. Cochlearius was formerly
placed in a monotypic family Cochleariidae (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1960,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Bock (1956), Payne
& Risley (1976), and Sheldon (1987). Plumage and skeletal characters
have often been interpreted as suggesting as close relationship to Nycticorax
(Bock 1956, Cracraft 1967). Payne & Risley (1976)
and Payne (1979) placed it in a tribe, Cochlearini, related to but separate
from night-herons, based on a combination of morphological and plumage
characters. Genetic data, however, do not confirm a close link between Cochlearius
and night-herons, but perhaps a closer
relationship to Tigrisoma (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken
& Sheldon 1998).
4a. The subspecies zeledoni
of Middle America and northwestern South America may deserve treatment as a separate
species from Cochlearius cochlearius (Meyer de Schauensee 1966), but see
(REFS).
5. Mayr & Short (1970), Payne & Risley (1976), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and
Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Nycticorax nycticorax to
form a superspecies with Old World N. caledonicus.
6. Nyctanassa has been
included in Nycticorax in some classifications (e.g., AOU 1983), but
Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) retained Nyctanassa on the
basis of skeletal differences <check Adams 1955>. Genetic data (Sheldon
1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) also indicate
substantial divergence between these taxa, consistent with treatment as
separate genera; furthermore, it is not yet certain that the two are sister
genera.
7. The relationship of Zebrilus
to other herons has been controversial. In terms of some details of egg color,
nest placement, plumage features, and some morphological characters as well as
overall skeletal morphology, it is like the bitterns, but in terms of other
plumage and morphological characters, it is like the tiger-herons (see Payne
& Risley 1976, Sheldon et al. 1995). Genetic data (Sheldon et al. 1995),
however, place it with the bitterns.
8. Mayr & Short (1970)
considered all species of Botaurus to form a superspecies.
Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered B. pinnatus to
form a superspecies with North American B.
lentiginosus and Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus.
Payne & Risley (1976), however, note that New and Old World Botaurus
differ substantially in skeletal structure, and that pinnatus also
differs from lentiginosus in skeletal features; they suggest that the
only candidates for superspecies designation are Old World B. stellaris
and B. poicilopterus. 9. Mayr & Short (1970), Payne & Risley (1976), Payne (1979), Sibley &
Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Ixobrychus
exilis to form a superspecies with Old World I. minutus and I.
sinensis, and including I. novaezelandiae when given species rank.
10. Butorides virescens and B.
striata are often considered conspecific (e.g., Payne 1979, Hancock &
Kushlan 1984, Martínez-Vilata and Motis 1992), based mainly on Payne (1974),
who reported extensive interbreeding where their ranges meet. Recent
classifications (e.g., AOU 1998) have followed Monroe & Browning (1992),
who interpreted specimen data to indicate that the two taxa seldom hybridized
(see also Voous 1986), thus representing a return to earlier classifications
(e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). More recently,
Hayes (2002) provided evidence of frequent hybridization as well as competitive
exclusion and assortative mating, and Hayes (2006) found that on Tobago, where
both occur, hybridization is rare and assortative mating predominates.
11. Payne & Risley (1976) merged
Butorides into Ardeola based on skeletal similarities, but
genetic data do not support this (Sheldon et al. 1995, Sheldon
et al. 2000).
12. SACC
proposal to split Butorides sundevalli from B. striatus did not
pass, which found the analysis by Payne (1974)
sufficient to place burden-of-proof on recognizing sundevalli as a
species on obtaining new data. Hellmayr & Conover (1948a) and AOU (1998)
recognized sundevalli as a species implicitly, but it was treated as
conspecific in Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) and elsewhere. <incorp. Snow 1975> (Beyond scope of this work is the
problem that current classifications consider Neotropical and all Old World
taxa as conspecific, separate from B. virescens, which would seem
difficult to defend given what we know about limited gene flow between
parapatric virescens and Neotropical striatus).
13. Butorides is feminine, so the correct
spelling of the species name is striata (David & Gosselin 2002b).
13a. Photograph from Fernando de Noronha island (Silva-e-Silva and Olmos 2006). SACC proposal pending to add to main list. Previous sight record also from Fernando de Noronha island, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1987,
Nacinovic & Teixeira 1987, 1989).
14. Bubulcus is included in
the genus Ardeola in some classifications (e.g., REF, Fjeldså &
Krabbe 1990), but Wetmore (1965) and Payne & Risley (1976) listed many
characters of Bubulcus that differ from other species in Ardeola.
Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) merged Bubulcus into Egretta
based mainly on morphometric data, and this was followed by
Haverschmidt & Mees (1994). Genetic data, however, do not support a
close relationship between Bubulcus and Egretta, but suggest a
close relationship to Ardea (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998).
15. Band recovery from
Trinidad, 27 Aug 1959 (Baudouin-Bodin 1960) and published photo from Trinidad (Kenefick & Hayes 2006); also additional sight records for Trinidad and Tobago
accepted by Trinidad & Tobago Rare Birds Committee (White & Hayes 2002,
ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006). Sick (1993) cited another band recovery from Capitao
Poco, Ourem, Par√°, in Dec 1975.
16. Payne & Risley
(1976), Payne (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis
(1992) considered Ardea cinerea, A. herodias, and A. cocoi to form a superspecies.
17. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "White-necked Heron," but this
name is also used (e.g., Martínez-Vilata & Motis
1992) for Old World Ardea pacifica.
17a. One
photographed on Trinidad 24 Sept.-10 Oct. 2002 (Kenefick 2004) and published in
Kenefick & Hayes (2006). SACC proposal passed to
add to main list. Also, one sight record from Fernando
de Noronha island, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1987, Nacinovic &
Teixeira 1987, 1989)
18. Ardea alba
was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr &
Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU
1983) placed in monotypic genus odius, but morphometric (Payne and Risley 1976), vocal (McCracken
& Sheldon 1987), and genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al.
1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998; cf. Huang et al. 2016) do not support recognition of this as a separate genus
from Ardea. Some classifications (e.g., Blake 1977) have placed Ardea
alba in Egretta, but see Sheldon (1987), Sheldon et al. (1995), and
McCracken & Sheldon (1998) .
18a. Formerly known as "Common
Egret" (e.g., AOU 1957, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994);
called "Great White Egret" in Voous (1983), Fjeldså & Krabbe
(1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992).
19. Genetic data indicate that Syrigma, whose
relationships have long been considered uncertain, is the sister genus to Egretta
(McCracken & Sheldon 1988, Sheldon et al. 2000).
20. <?Bock
(1956)> included Pilherodius in Nycticorax based on plumage
similarities, but neither morphometric (Payne &
Risley 1976) or genetic data (Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken &
Sheldon 1998) support this; genetic data indicate that it is a member of the Egretta-Syrigma
group.
21. Egretta tricolor
was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps
& Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed
in a monotypic genus, Hydranassa. Bock (1956) also placed E.
rufescens and E. caerulea in Hydranassa. Neither
morphometric (Payne & Risley 1976) or genetic data (Sheldon
1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998)
support this group as monophyletic.
21a. Formerly
(e.g., AOU 1957) known as "Louisiana Heron."
22. Egretta rufescens was formerly
(e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps
& Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Dichromanassa,
but see [REF].
23. Recorded from
Trinidad (Murphy & Nanan 1987, Kenefick & Hayes 2006) and
Tobago (ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).
24. Egretta garzetta has been
recorded many times in Trinidad & Tobago (ffrench & Hayes 1998, ffrench
& White 1999, Hayes & White 2001, White & Hayes 2002, Kenefick
& Hayes 2006), including a specimen (Downs 1959). There is a band recovery
from Suriname (Haverschmidt & Mees 1994), and a photograph from Brazil
(Bencke et al. 2005). There are sight reports from Guyana (Ryan 1997) and Aruba
(Mlodinow 2004).
25. Egretta
gularis and E. garzetta were
considered conspecific in Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992); Payne & Risley
(1976) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered E. gularis, E.
garzetta, and E. thula to form a superspecies.
25a. Egretta thula
was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps
& Phelps 1958a) placed in the monotypic genus Leucophoyx,
but see Bock (1956), Wetmore (1956), and Dickerman & Parkes (1968).
26. Egretta
caerulea was formerly (e.g., Pinto
1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps
& Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Florida,
but see Dickerman & Parkes (1968), Payne &
Risley (1976), and McCracken & Sheldon (1998).
THRESKIORNITHIDAE (IBISES) 1
Eudocimus
albus White Ibis 2, 3, 3a
Eudocimus ruber Scarlet Ibis 2
Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis 4
Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis 4
Plegadis ridgwayi Puna Ibis 5
Cercibis oxycerca Sharp-tailed Ibis
Mesembrinibis cayennensis Green Ibis
6
Phimosus infuscatus Bare-faced Ibis 7
Theristicus caerulescens Plumbeous
Ibis 8
Theristicus caudatus Buff-necked Ibis
Theristicus melanopis Black-faced
Ibis 9
Platalea leucorodia Eurasian Spoonbill (V) 10
Platalea ajaja Roseate Spoonbill 11
1. The monophyly of this family has
never been seriously questioned. Two subfamilies are traditionally (e.g., Matheu & del Hoyo 1992) recognized:
Threskiornithinae for ibises and Plataleinae for spoonbills; because the main
distinction has to do with bill shape, additional information, especially
genetic, is required to recognize a major, deep split in the family.
2. Eudocimus albus and
E. ruber have similar displays, interbreed to a limited degree,
and are interfertile, but nonetheless mate assortatively in Venezuela, with the
overwhelming majority of breeding birds phenotypically "pure" rather
than intermediate (Ramos & Busto 1983, 1985, 1987); they constitute a
superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Steinbacher 1979, Sibley & Monroe
1990). They were considered conspecific by Hancock et al.
(1992) because of the frequent interbreeding; see their extensive discussion. Proposal?
3. The
name formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) used for the genus Eudocimus
was Guara,
but see (REF>.
3a. Called "American White
Ibis" in Hancock et al. (1992) and Matheu &
del Hoyo (1992) to distinguish it from "Australian White Ibis" (Threskiornis
molucca). Proposal?
4. Plegadis falcinellus
and P. chihi form a superspecies
(Steinbacher 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990). They were
formerly considered conspecific by some (e.g., Palmer 1962), but they
breed sympatrically in Louisiana, USA (AOU 1983, 1998, <BNA>).
5. Plegadis
ridgwayi was considered part of the P. falcinellus superspecies by
REF, but
see Short (1975).
6. Called
"Cayenne Ibis" in Wetmore (1965).
7. Called "Whispering
Ibis" in Matheu & del Hoyo (1992) and
elsewhere. Proposal?
8. Theristicus caerulescens
is often (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover
1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Short 1975, Hancock et al. 1992) placed
in monotypic genus Harpiprion, but most authors have followed (REF) and
Steinbacher (1979) in merging this genus into Theristicus. Proposal needed. <Hancock et al. 1992 suggest that
no data support this lump>
9. Theristicus
melanopis is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee
1970, Blake 1977, Hancock et al. 1992) considered conspecific with T. caudatus.
However, it (with branickii)
was considered a separate species by Steinbacher (1979), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Matheu & del Hoyo
(1992), Ridgely et al. (2001), etc., but no explicit rationale
has been published [?]; they form a superspecies (Steinbacher 1979). Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered branickii as separate species
("Andean Ibis") from melanopis. Proposal?
10. Photo from Tobago published in
Kenefick & Hayes (2006). SACC proposal passed to
add to main list. Also, one was photographed
on Fernando de Noronha island
in Jan.-Feb. 1999 (Dutch Birding 24:
205).
11. Platalea ajaja was formerly
(e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps
& Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1998) placed in monotypic
genus Ajaia, but see Hancock et al. (1992) and Banks et al. (2002) for
inclusion in Platalea, as it is now typically treated (e.g., Mayr and
Short 1970, Steinbacher 1979 <check citation>, Matheu
& del Hoyo 1992, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).
CICONIIDAE (STORKS) 1
Ciconia
maguari Maguari Stork 2
Jabiru mycteria Jabiru
Mycteria americana Wood Stork 3
1. [Note on
relationships of the family, monophyly]. (incorp. Mayr & Clarke 2003, Hackett et al. 2008). The monophyly of the Ciconiidae is strongly supported by
multiple data sets (e.g., REFS).
2. Ciconia maguari
was formerly (e.g.,
Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps
& Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Euxenura, but see Kahl
(1971a, 1971b, 1972a, 1972b) and Wood (1983, 1984) for behavioral and
morphological reasons for its merger into Ciconia; followed by Kahl
(1979a), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Elliot (1992), and Haverschmidt
& Mees (1994).
3. Formerly known as "Wood Ibis"
(e.g., AOU 1957) or "American Wood-Ibis" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1970); called "American Wood Stork" in Hancock et al. (1992).
CATHARTIFORMES 1
CATHARTIDAE (NEW WORLD VULTURES) 1
Cathartes
aura Turkey Vulture 2
Cathartes burrovianus Lesser Yellow-headed
Vulture 3, 4
Cathartes melambrotus Greater
Yellow-headed Vulture 3, 5
Coragyps atratus Black Vulture 6
Sarcoramphus papa King Vulture
Vultur gryphus Andean Condor
1. Ligon (1967) summarized previous evidence and
presented new evidence on skeletal morphology, myology, and natal plumage that
suggested that the Cathartidae were more closely related to the Ciconiidae than
to other Falconiformes. <summarize subsequent
evidence/against ciconiiform relationship, Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Avise
et al. (1994), Griffiths (1994), Mayr & Clarke (2003) , Fain
& Houde (2004) etc., >. Recent genetic data strongly refute a
cathartid-stork relationship (Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb
et al. 2006, Slack et al. 2007, Hackett et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to
remove from Ciconiiformes. The monophyly of
the Cathartidae is strongly supported by multiple data sets (e.g., REFS), and
the family is sufficiently distinctive that fossil cathartids can be recognized
as far back as the middle Eocene (e.g., Cracraft & Rich 1972). Proposal passed for placement in separate order,
Cathartiformes.
2. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the resident
tropical subspecies ruficollis and the southern subspecies group (jota
and "falklandica") might merit recognition as separate species
from the northern Cathartes aura group.
3. Cathartes melambrotus was confused with and considered
conspecific with C. burrovianus until Wetmore (1964) described it and
showed that it was a valid species, sympatric with C. burrovianus. Amadon & Bull (1988) considered Cathartes burrovianus
and C. melambrotus to form a superspecies, but
they are widely sympatric.
4. Cathartes burrovianus was
formerly (e.g., Pinto
1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949) known as C.
urubutinga, but burrovianus has priority (Stresemann & Amadon
1979).
5. Correct spelling of species name is melambrotus,
not "melambrotos" (as, e.g., in Meyer de Schauensee 1970).
6. Called "American Black Vulture" in
Houston (1994) to distinguish it from Palearctic Aegypius monachus
("Eurasian Black Vulture"); the latter is called Cinereous Vulture in
Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal to change to American Black Vulture did not pass.
Part 2. Falconiformes to Charadriiformes (click)
starting 7 June 2002:
</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://pub40.bravenet.com/counter/code.php?id=363423&usernum=3391039029&cpv=2"></script>
</BODY>
</HTML>